Patterico's Pontifications

3/6/2009

More on Limbaugh

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:20 am

Lee Stranahan recently wrote a piece which contained the provocative line: “You’re damn right I wanted the Iraq war to fail.” I think there’s a good parallel between that piece and Rush Limbaugh’s statements that he wants Obama to fail.

Stranahan’s use of that line was a blatant attention-grabber — and the gambit worked. Numerous conservative sites — including this one, Hot Air and Instapundit — linked to the piece with that provocative quote and nothing else. If you wanted the context, you had to go read what he had to say.

Now, Stranahan obviously didn’t want to see Americans suffer and die. He just didn’t want Bush’s policies enacted because he thought they were bad for the country. However, his line could have meant one of two things:

  • Stranahan opposed President Bush’s policies, and felt that they were likely to lead to more death. He wished Bush’s policies had never been enacted to begin with. However, once the war started, he wanted to see it succeed.
  • Stranahan opposed President Bush’s policies, and felt that they were likely to lead to more death. So, even after the war started, Stranahan wanted it to fail. This is not because Stranahan wanted more death for U.S. soldiers. But he felt that, in the long run, the quick and dramatic failure of the war might lead to his proposed policy being adopted: namely, getting out. In the long run, this would be best for America.

You can read Stranahan’s piece and see which interpretation you think is right. I happen to think it’s the former, but it’s not crystal clear. He says he wishes the war could fail without loss of life, but that would require magic, and there’s no such thing as magic. One could read those lines and conclude that, even knowing more soldiers would die, he still wanted the war to fail. This bothered me the first time I read it, and I can guarantee you that it bothered plenty of conservatives. My commenters mostly respected his straight talk, but some said things like: “Can I question his patriotism now?” At Hot Air, commenters reacted similarly, with praise for his courage intermingled with comments like: “so failure meant troop deaths, right?” and “Hoping the Dow go down is not the same as hoping casualties go up.” and ‘Libs wanted soldiers to die, hell all Rush wants is BO to fail..not die.” and “I’ll bet he claims he supports the troops.”

I think Stranahan knew that his line could be read as saying the more controversial of the two interpretations I list above. He could argue that’s not what he meant — but the possibility that people could take it that way is what gave it its provocative power.

If I were a liberal, and if Stranahan had had a major national platform where the entire country was discussing his views, I’d want to tell him to find a different way to say what he said. Do you think it would help Democrat politicians to spend days answering questions like: “Do you also want the Iraq war to fail, like Lee Stranahan?” — and have to spend time explaining to people that Stranahan didn’t really want soldiers to die? I’d tell Stranahan: You want to say you opposed Bush’s policies, great. Stop saying it in a way that makes it sound like you wanted troops to die. Yes, I know you don’t mean that. People will still think you do — and frankly, you weren’t all that clear about saying you didn’t. You said it, but the implications of what you said could suggest to some that you might not have meant it.

Rush Limbaugh’s “I hope Obama fails” statement is similar in many ways.

Rush’s use of that line was a blatant attention-grabber — and the gambit worked. Numerous media outlets have talked about the line. If you wanted the context, you had to go read and/or listen what he had to say. Not everybody did.

Now, Rush obviously doesn’t want to see Americans suffer. He just doesn’t want Obama’s policies enacted because he thinks they are bad for the country. However, his line could have meant one of two things:

  • Rush opposes President Obama’s policies, and feels that they are likely to lead to more suffering. He hopes Obama’s policies are never enacted to begin with. However, if they are enacted, as seems likely, he wants to see them succeed. He wants the economy to do well. He doesn’t want Americans out of work.
  • Rush opposes President Obama’s policies, and feels that they are likely to lead to more suffering. So, even if the policies do get enacted, Rush still wants them to fail. This is not because Rush wants more suffering for the American people. But he feels that, in the long run, the quick and dramatic failure of the policies might lead to Rush’s own proposed policies being adopted: namely, spending less and employing the free market. In the long run, this would be best for America.

You can read Rush’s actual words and see which interpretation you think is right. I happen to think it’s the former, but it’s not crystal clear. He says he wants Obama to fail because he thinks Obama’s policies will be bad for the country. But give me a quote that clearly says which of the above interpretations is right. Here‘ is his radio statement, and here is his CPAC speech. Don’t just tell me he has explained it again and again. Give me a quote that excludes the second interpretation above. I can’t find it.

Now, you could even defend the second interpretation above. But recognize that it’s a hard sell for the American people.

The media reads his words as saying that, even knowing more Americans might suffer, he still wants Obama’s policies to fail even if they are enacted. This possible interpretation bothered me the first time I read it, and I can guarantee you that it bothers plenty of Americans. Many respect his straight talk, but others clearly think Rush wants another Depression, just to prove conservative policies are better.

I think Rush knew that his line could be read as saying the more controversial of the two interpretations I list above. He could argue that’s not what he meant — but the possibility that people could take it that way is what gave it its provocative power.

Rush has had a major national platform where the entire country was discussing his views. As a result, I wish he’d find a different way to say what he said. I say to him: if you want to say you oppose Obama’s policies, great. Stop saying it in a way that makes it sound like you want Americans out of work. Yes, I know you don’t mean that. People will still think you do — and frankly, you weren’t all that clear about saying you didn’t.

Anyone who bristles at hearing the phrase “You’re damn right I wanted the Iraq war to fail.” — or who can imagine other Americans bristling at that line — should understand what I’m saying.

P.S. Recently Allahpundit said:

Coulter repeats the boss’s point from earlier today about how it’s perfectly okay to criticize Rush. Since when? Did CPAC pass a resolution?

Heh. Yeah, I don’t think so. Yesterday, I didn’t criticize Rush, but praised him as a talented expounder of conservative principles. I also noted that “some of the things he says are designed principally to stir controversy and draw attention to himself” — and opined that prominent conservatives need not sign on to his “I want Obama to fail” formulation in order to demonstrate their commitment to conservatism.

Was that “perfectly okay” for me to say? I’ll spare you a dramatic woe-is-me Kathleen Parker-style all-out martyrdom scene. I hate that crap. Just judge for yourself. (To be fair, some of the people made very good arguments and points; not everyone knows me that well at other blogs; and people have indeed been burned lately by supercilious folks like David Frum and Kathleen Parker.)

P.P.S. Yesterday, speaking of the reaction to his doubling down on the “I hope he fails” rhetoric, Rush Limbaugh specifically named some people who have backed him up. Note especially the comments in bold:

“The Power Line guys, the guys at Power Line blog have been stupendous, as have been the people at NewsBusters, and Hot Air, Ed Morrissey and some of the people at Hot Air. There’s some oddballs there, but Ed Morrissey, Michelle Malkin, they have been great on this.”

OH NO YOU DID-ENT!

On Twitter, Allahpundit says: “I’m THE oddball, I presume.” I’m having a hard time interpreting it any other way.

Nobody disses my favorite blogger! Nobody! THIS MEANS WAR!!

357 Responses to “More on Limbaugh”

  1. Not really. It’s just fun to say that.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  2. And PROVOCATIVE!!

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  3. Rush has spoken tens of millions of words in his decades-long career. It’s inevitable that at least a few thousand of those words were stupid. Probably most people are never going to give him a serious listening; I “get” Rush, but his faux bombast and mock pomposity are too much for many to stomach. To the extent that the left has targeted Rush as a wedge to drive between conservatives, we reward their strategy as we struggle to defend him. We have to emphasize ideas over personalities. All too often when we put great faith in people, we end up disappointed, since all people are fallible.

    gp (72be5d)

  4. This whole hope he fails thing would be a lot easier to analyze I think if you would just accept the premise that Baracky is evil.

    happyfeet (bf7f5a)

  5. Could you have explained yourself better? no… i kinda think not. This is exactly right. Rush is awesome, but he’s created a great distraction for the Obamatons. I think Obama’s attacks on rush are backfiring, but Rush didn’t say the ‘fail’ remark to help the conservative movement.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  6. I read Stranahan’s piece, and I’ve read about, and heard clips of Limbaugh’s statements. I think they each really feel the latter of the respective 2 meanings you propose. Personally, I find nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT, while Limbaugh’s desire is an America ultimately enjoying success, Stranahan’s desire is an America ultimately kowtowing to foreign regimes.

    Ira (28a423)

  7. While so many prattle on about Rush wanting Obama to fail, it ignores the questions, “Will Obama’s policies work?” and, “Will those policies be good for America?”

    The answer to both questions is, no they won’t.

    At the risk of being racist, why haven’t we seen a political cartoon showing ten white fingers over a keyboard putting words into Obama’s mouth?

    Obama is not smart. He has NO capacity to think critically…all he can do is mouth the platitudes written for him by his white speech writers.

    Glad I didn’t buy stocks on Obama’s recommendation.

    Jack (d9cbc5)

  8. I think anyone who thinks “Rush wants America to fail” is someone who deliberately does not want to think.

    Not much you can do about that. People (like some trolls here) can be deliberately stupid at times as a way of doing street theatre. We’re supposed to “get it” and think that they are very deep and wise, when in reality they are simply childish and self-absorbed.

    I “get” it on wanting Iraq to fail or Bambi to fail. I wish the words used to express that were a bit more elegant.

    But as others have pointed out – what are we all talking about? What Rush wants us to. Even Bambi can’t get his message across now.

    I take it Bambi never read Uncle Remus stories about Br’er Rabbit.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  9. Stranahan’s piece is a very fair comparison to what Rush is doing/saying. He (Rush) wants the limelight and uses controversy to get it.

    The problem I see is that ‘we’ (which I am defining as the vast majority of Americans) continue to point fingers at others to show how ‘they’ (who ever ‘we’ are against) are wrong on the subject du jour. We continue to support our side and blast the other.

    And in the end, we don’t accomplish what we’re really after.

    The Federal Government is out of control. It isn’t the Republicans or Democrats that did this – it is the Federalists (which have taken over both parties). And the Federalists are using Stranahan and Rush (and many others) to polarize and obfiscate the real problem: Federalism.

    We can’t blame liberalism or conservitism – at least not as they were defined a few centuries ago. But we can blame both parties from deviating from their foundings.

    It was a hard-fought battle to keep the Aaron Burr’s of the 1800s from taking control. But we lost the battle over the past few decades and now Federalism wears the guise the two parties that were joined against it.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  10. Yes, this is a distraction from The One and his intentions for this country.

    See Charles Krauthammer for the ” brazen deception at the heart of Obama’s radically transformative economic plan, a rhetorical sleight of hand so smoothly offered that few noticed.”

    jeff (cbe1ae)

  11. Let’s not get distracted from the distraction by the distraction.

    Dan Collins (4dc2da)

  12. Also, I wish you guys would stop thinking about sex.

    Dan Collins (4dc2da)

  13. Wonder how many so-called thinking people voted for Bambi just because he’s black or would vote for any liberal? Just look at the body of his work and associations without thinking the country “needs a black man to heal our racial diviseness.” And what party plays that race card canard all the time? The local moonbats are already telling me Barry Hussein is brilliant and spiritual. Yeah, right. The dirty Rethug are to blame for all our problems and Barry has to fix them while giving us socialized medicine, onerous energy taxes to kiss algore’s ass on AGW. Dems apparently want Israel to fail and Palis to suck the life blood of Jews. Most of the Jews here seem to be fine with that too.
    Not PC to say so, but what black has actually been successful in politics and far as what is good for the country? Which ones rose not because they were black. I used to think Condi Rice was great until I saw her work at State Dept. and acceptance of Arabist viewpoints/liberal-like devotion to the Hamas viewpoints. Did RINO Colin Powell get as far as he did because he is so brilliant or because he was born of Jamaican immigrants? How many high-profile blacks did NOT vote for Bambi, regardless of their supposed Conservative credentials? Dems keep blacks enslaved and yet blacks support more failed liberal policies and are fine with reelecting black clowns with egregious criminal records. I don’t care what anyone’s color or sexual preference is. Why must we be constantly beat over the head with it? I think carpetbagger Alan Keyes is a far better than speaker than O’Dumbo will ever be, but Keyes is considered radical for his views on things like abortion. I happen to think Clarence Thomas in wonderful, but he has also been demonized. The whole business with Anita Hill makes him evil in eyes of many women; the same libtwats who were rationalizing Bill Clinton’s behavior and who even stated in some case how they’d be more tahn pleased to give him bj themselves.
    O’Dumbo is just wrong on so many levels. For eight years we heard what a failure Bush was and the worst potus in history. Have the laws of economics and human nature been repealed? Bush gave in time and gain to buffoons like fat teddy, oh excuse me, now Sir Kennedy. So what is the misery index headed toward? What will Carter Redux dvise us to do when we are really hurting? Some of us truly do believe that government is the problem. And now $500 billion to FDIC and more monies down the rat hole over and over to AIG and such?

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  14. Conservatives either hate sex, or are scared about it. Don’t you know anything, Dan?

    JD (771d22)

  15. Let’s take a poll here in the comments. Which of the above two interpretations of Rush’s remarks do you think he meant?

    Bonus question for those who pick #1: can you provide ANY quote from Limbaugh that clearly shows he means #1 and not #2?

    Saying he thinks Obama’s policies would be harmful does not distinguish between #1 and #2.

    Patterico (443cb1)

  16. If the controversy is about ‘agreeing with what you said, but not the way you said it’, then it’s a time waster.

    Obama intellectualcredentials are questionable because he has not released his grades and has no scholarly papers to which he can point to. His two books are not scholarly works, and I wonder how many have remained unread.

    Obama has NO idea of what a proper EMR program should look like. Here’s a hint: it first requires that all medical terminology be standardized, and that means all of those insurance codes be standardized, which they are not.

    You cannot run the energy sector, the health sector, the finance sector if you have majored in black studies and law school. You don’t have the vocabulary and you certainly don’t have the knowledge.

    I imagine that Obama’s meeting with staff are more along the lines of tutorials for Obama, which have to be repeated.

    Will anyone ask Obama to give a definition of a p/e ratio, without looking at his teleprompter?

    And I would bet that Obama can’t read and understand a profit and loss statement.

    Jack (d9cbc5)

  17. What a lovely and nuanced approach.

    Me, I don’t waste a lot of time attempting to find exonerating evidence for those who clearly disagree with me and oppose policy that I support, nor do I bother to engage in mental gymnastics to find fault in the statements of those with whom I mostly agree.

    I salute your attempts to be completely, 100% unbiased and centrist (/snark), but I still think you are full of it. Be a man, pick a side, support your allies and don’t resort to mental gymnastics to call their motivations and intents to question while doing the same to provide cover for your opponents.

    Seems simple to me.It’s not that I do not comprehend the subtleties that could be teased out of the situation, it’s just that engaging in the solopsist excercise is a waste of everyone’s time.

    West (641480)

  18. Also, I wish you guys would stop thinking about sex.

    Comment by Dan Collins — 3/6/2009 @ 8:19 am

    I seldom comment at Protein Wisdom, these days, because I get too many indecent proposals from the Log Cabin Republicans there. It’s flattering, but given my family situation and aging prostate … it’s not what I really read Jeff for.

    nk (502275)

  19. I didn’t look through all the comments from yesterdays Rush thread, but did anyone see this?

    ‘Maybe Limbaugh Should be Executed for Treason’

    ML (14488c)

  20. 17 very succinct and well said. I don’t listen to Rush or pay much attention to Coulter; seems to me they are entertainers and yet dead on right about the hypocrisy of liberals. I did listen to Limbaugh years ago when he was excorciating Hillary’s bad acts. Of course the evil one vis a vis the Clintons was Ken Starr interfering in the Clinton family’s private marriage affairs. I still think Starr did yeoman’s work on getting plenty of Clinton associates in prison and such. One wonders how or why the IRS is down fine with all the asshole porposed Obama apoointees cheating on THEIR taxes. Do as I say and not as I do for the new tax boss? How many people will be less than honest doing their own taxes or will now at least strive to avoid having a bigger income with working hard just to pay more taxes?How will Bambi’s new tax ideas impact charities and housing market values? Fine that he can play the capiltaist game and find idiots to give him $4 mil for his book. Kind of racist there because Hillary got far more for her books of lies. I think O’Dumbo’s may be filled with plenty of truths about his agenda and who gave him his radical idealism, but adoring media will never call him on it.

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  21. Which of the above two interpretations of Rush’s remarks do you think he meant?

    I pick #3. Rush loves America. He does not want Obama to fail because failure of the President hurts America. He does not want Obama’s policies to fail, either, if they are only the means to the end of protecting and strengthening America, even though Rush may prefer different means. Rush only wants bad intentions and policies obviously hurtful to America but gratifying to the empty suit, with a head full of warmed-over socialism spiced with Chicago-style kleptocracy, to fail.

    nk (502275)

  22. I hope Rush makes a comeback.

    XYZ was one of my favorite albums ;)

    Oiram (983921)

  23. I didn’t look through all the comments from yesterdays Rush thread, but did anyone see this?

    ‘Maybe Limbaugh Should be Executed for Treason’

    Comment by ML — 3/6/2009 @ 8:37 am

    Stephanie Miller is a twerp.

    Although, no Democrat leader in their right mind is going to apologize to her. She’s just not that powerful.

    Oiram (983921)

  24. That is just speaking Twoof to Powder, ML.

    Speaking of, the attractive lady that Barcky introduced while kicking off the health-ruination summit had me paying attention to her until she said they were “speaking twoof to powder”, at which point I clubbed a baby seal to death, and spent the rest of the day releasing as many little evil carbons as possible into the environment.

    JD (771d22)

  25. I, too, pick #3. Rush wants Obama to fail simply because that failure would be good for the country. Obama’s actions thus far have illustrated a complete lack of understanding of basic economics. As such, opposition to The One is absolutely vital at this point.

    And this is coming from a conservative who voted for Obama over McCain. And would do so again.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  26. Pat, why not debate Jeff on the points he raises? Why are you dodging that question?

    Comment by Jeff G. on 3/6 @ 10:16 am #

    Of course Patterico responded on his own site. I’ve come to expect nothing less. He’s less interested in debate than he is trying to look as though he’s won an argument. Tell me, does he bother even to link to this thread?

    I’m not going to waste my time on him, because in 400 comments, he didn’t bother to address my concerns. Not once. And as far as I’m concerned, my concerns are the ones that matter here.

    If somebody else who posts here wants to stand up for me, he or she can. If not, whatever. I don’t much care. The argument exists outside of just me and Patterico — and only one of us actually addressed it. As I keep reiterating, the rest is noise.

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14465#comment-669104

    Now sometimes it is difficult to get past the nuance of Jeff’s sublime diplomatic tact…

    Jeff argues that if you let the left dictate how you are going to debate, you have lost the debate before it even starts. I mean as a lawyer, you must agree with that?

    I get your position too. The CPAC comments you made about speakers wasting time on Obama being Kenyan, Indonesian or some other nationality. It is a waste of time at this point, Obama is elected. It is now time to attack his policies, current associations, and actions.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  27. Well, so far Bambi has destroyed trillions in wealth. I’m not sure at what point in the future he can be said to have “failed”; surely he’s failed already?

    steve miller (c76b20)

  28. And I agree with you about Coulter. I do not care that Coulter is provocative, in an attention grabbing way, I care that I think she is full of shit. She could care less about conservative principals. Everything about her is about promoting her and her book sales.

    I do not think that about Rush. He is obviously a self promoter (no problem with that) but he is a true believer.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  29. 2

    [taxes unchanged]+[reduced spending]=[reduced debt]
    [reduced taxes]+[reduced spending]=[faster reduced debt]

    No debt and no budget deficits are outward manifestations of a sound economy. Sound economies make for sound nations. So go ahead and squabble over whatever your beloved pet social/political flavors may be…as long as one or both of the above formulas are firmly in place, and you throw in liberty and justice for all, I’ll salute it.

    allan (0a5ea8)

  30. Comment by Jeff G. on 3/6 @ 10:42 am #

    I can’t speak for others, Diana, but for me, this isn’t about Limbaugh necessarily. It’s about language and my refusal to accept certain conditions that are, even as we speak, insinuating themselves into our cultural hermeneutic without question, becoming linguistic givens, with the aid of the very people whose beliefs those conditions aim to destroy.

    These are not easily removed once entrenched. That some in conservatism would allow that to happen for the chance at pretending toward some imaginary rhetorical high road, well, they are blind to their own culpability for want of celebrating their own self-righteousness.

    Jeff Goldstein is talking about you Pat.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  31. # 25. JD

    That is very funny.
    I think I may have to do that today myself.

    ML (14488c)

  32. Nice, Patterico. But let me just toss this in the ring; could it be that Rush saw the conservative pols confused and seemingly sitting on their rhetorical hands?

    I agree with your analysis, but I also see Rush’s comments as a cold bucket of water thrown on not only the pols, but all of us, as if to say; “snap out of it!”

    I go back to the “keep the eye on the prize” thing. There’s been no focus in the conservative movement. Maybe after we argue with each other about semantics for awhile, we can get back to the battle of ideas.

    I don’t know, maybe it’s natural for conservatives to be divided and easier for liberals to come together. Libs have been pretty successful in their 50 year campaign to persuade America, haven’t they?

    Cranbone (9a454f)

  33. I admire both Pat & Jeff, and don’t want to see ill will. Regardless, I wouldn’t want them to cease speaking their minds, even if they are not in agreement. What helps the truth is to speak plainly & not to try to reach consensus by avoiding the tough spots.

    Jeff’s position is, I think, that the “right” should simply ignore the attempts of the drive-by media to frame the debate, the terms, and the winning position.

    Pat’s position seems to be that trying to speak the language that the broad mass of Americans understand doesn’t mean compromising the argument.

    They both have good reasons for their positions. And we need both types of arguments. At times, speaking plainly and provocatively gets the point across, even if it’s unnuanced. At times it’s nice to have a reasoned argument. I want a general to speak clearly and plainly when I’m going into battle, but I want my lecturer to have a 3-point outline on why his course of action is right.

    Maybe the real point is, in what context is it important to be provocative?

    Remember how Bambi talked about those poor, stupid gun-clingers and god-lovers, and he thought it was in private? That’s when you say the stuff that’s provocative.

    In public you generally need to speak soothingly. You need to be Walter Cronkite – believable, sage, suave, and all-knowing.

    It’s fun to listen to Rush, but he’d be a terrible elected leader – he is into fun and provocation.

    We need leaders that have a clear vision like Rush does, but with the ability to talk about the vision in terms that don’t immediately cause the average American to say “that’s nuts.”

    I don’t know who that is right now. And I think right now there isn’t a clear sense of what’s important in the Republican party or even in the conservative movement.

    Me? I just want to be left alone to raise my family and pursue my career. I’d like the government to get out of the way, and stop spending so much money. Let me try to save up my money for my retirement. Provide for the common defense. Promote the general welfare.

    Instead, I have a bloated government that thinks it’s capable of doing things. A government that thinks printing money is the same thing as solving a crisis. A government that snubs its friends and hugs its enemies.

    Feh.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  34. Damn, I forgot to add right after justice for all…a big, bad military stick ready to swing. One of the costs of doing business in this world presently. An insurance tax of sorts. Would like to steam clean the waste and palsy-walsy contract system. Part of my reduced spending formula, you see.

    allan (0a5ea8)

  35. Oh, and there’s reasoned debate – and there’s the attempt to get people to fight.

    If you have a position, say it. But I don’t think people should go around saying “Let’s you and him fight.”

    steve miller (c76b20)

  36. And one more thing – thanks to Bambi’s White House, I’ve started listening to Rush again after not listening since 1996.

    After all, if Bambi doesn’t have it in him to oppose Iran or Russia but instead goes after Rush, then Rush – and what he says – must be pretty important. So as a concerned, involved citizen, I should also listen & think for myself.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  37. Distraction. Distraction. Distraction. What a waste of potential posting time. Don’t you get it? They, you know who, want you to take up all your time and talk about this issue, so you can’t spend the same time talking about more critical issues. Don’t fall for this White House crap sandwich. I’d much rather see a post about how far the DOW Jones has fallen since election day.

    J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3)

  38. I hope Rush makes a comeback.

    XYZ was one of my favorite albums

    Rush had a very successful tour last year – my 21 year old daughter took to see them. They are simply amazing live.

    And XYZ is not an album or song – It’s YYZ from their Moving Pictures album. The letters are the aviation call letters for Pearson International Airport in Toronto.

    A live version of YYZ for your enjoyment.

    Horatio (55069c)

  39. I mostly try to stay out of intra-conservative debates, because it’s really not my place to get involved, but I’d like to offer this observation:

    one of the things that I saw repeatedly stated on many conservative blogs during the period 2003-2007 was that many conservatives believed that Democrats wanted the Iraq war to fail because they believed that the Iraq war failing would cause Democrats to gain power … and that it was contemptible to be willing to sacrifice soldiers for political power.

    I never believed that was the case; I thought opposition to the Iraq war was earnest … but that didn’t stop many conservatives from believing it and condemning Demcorats for it.

    From the liberal perspective, it looks like Mr. Limbaugh and others who say they want Pres. Obama to fail are doing so because they beleive that, if Pres. Obama fails, it will lead to Republicans regaining power; and it’s contemptible to be willing to worsen an economic downturn for political gain.

    I believe that Mr. Limbaugh’s opposition to President Obama’s policies is earnest and derived from first principles, just as I believed that liberal opposition to the Iraq war was … but the opposition looks awful to both members of the opposite side and to moderates, for precisely the same reasons.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  40. Don’t interrupt the troll when he’s being precious.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  41. Why not post about something like this?

    Study: Dow’s Decline Is Fastest for a New President in Nearly a Century from FOX News.

    J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3)

  42. #38 YYZ!! That’s right!
    Thanks Horatio! Great band.

    And thanks for the link.

    Oiram (983921)

  43. From an interview with Sean Hannity:

    RUSH: I don’t know about this guy.” I really don’t. I’ve got my suspicions and they’re pretty close to convictions, but we’re going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln –

    HANNITY: (laughing)

    RUSH: — and if he does cut some taxes –

    HANNITY: Yeah.

    RUSH: — if he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan. But if he’s going to do FDR — if he’s going to do The New New Deal all over, which we will call here The Raw Deal — why would I want him to succeed? Look, he’s my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. If he is going to implement a far-left agenda… Look, I think it’s already decided: a $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government? I think the intent here is to create as many dependent Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation. If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it’s over, Sean. We’re never going to roll that back. That’s the end of America as we have known it, because that’s then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided. Why would I want that to succeed? I don’t believe in that. I know that’s not how this country is going to be great in the future; it’s not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, “No! I want him to fail.” If his agenda is a far-left collectivism — some people say socialism — as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

    Sal (3e2836)

  44. aphrael, I don’t consider you the troll, by the way.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  45. Not that it matters what I consider.

    Still, we all know who the troll is.

    Those of you who respond to it are encouraging it, so stop it. Please.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  46. aphrael, the difference is that many liberal Democrats initially supported the Iraq war. 39% of House Democrats and 58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

    Rush Limbaugh never supported Obama’s policies.

    But don’t let that stop you from making a fool of yourself. ;)

    h2u (81b7bd)

  47. “Jeff Goldstein is talking about you Pat.

    Comment by Joe — 3/6/2009 @ 8:58 am”

    Joe – It’s certainly nice of you to want to keep things stirred up between Patrick and Jeff, but it’s a pity that you don’t understand both sides of the argument. Keep trying.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  48. My point, by the way, is that once you buy it you own it. Congressional Democrats, particularly those in the Senate, bought into the Iraq War. The fact that many then changed their mind makes them look absolutely impotent.

    Rush Limbaugh and conservatives never bought into the Obama/Democrat plan.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  49. daleyrocks – yes, that’s Joe’s point. Stir up bad blood between Pat and Jeff rather than seek the truth.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  50. Let’s take a poll here in the comments. Which of the above two interpretations of Rush’s remarks do you think he meant?

    Bonus question for those who pick #1: can you provide ANY quote from Limbaugh that clearly shows he means #1 and not #2?

    Saying he thinks Obama’s policies would be harmful does not distinguish between #1 and #2.

    Doesn’t matter. Not in the slightest.

    Assume, as you persist in, that the “worst” is in fact the case. Limbaugh wants the economy to tank under Obama policies which will have the result of hurting a lot of people.

    Clearly too much time has passed since the New Deal. The schools teach that it alleviated the Depression, which is not true, and there was a big distraction that took place between 1941 and 1945 after which happy days were here again and few did much analysis of how or why the unhappy days were gone.

    Either President Obama believes in the New Deal fallacy, or he know better and this is all much more sinister–whichever is the case he is going to proceed with his plans, hell, high water, or low dow.

    The lessons weren’t learned when the opportunity was there. There is NO general cry against the New New Deal. It’s possible that the only way for the lesson to be learned is to go down this path. And fail. And get hurt.

    Failure, contrary to the conventional wisdom, is not a bad or evil thing. It’s only a problem if it is not responded to in an inappropriate way. If one learns lessons that lead to future success, it is a good thing.

    Even so. The New Deal failed and we did not learn the lessons. There are artifacts of policy left over that, seemingly, we cannot get rid of; Social Security for example. One major question is whether the New New Deal will saddle us with new futurely ruinous policies, or if we can leverage this failure to fix the Old New Deal. That would be a good failure.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  51. Good point about Bambi’s desire for control

    The salient point is that Bambi must dominate. Some weak-willed liberals are fawning over him & naming schools after him, but that’s not enough – Bambi needs LURVE! And if you oppose him, you must be crushed. Because what the world needs is LURVE SWEET LURVE!

    steve miller (c76b20)

  52. “Jeff Goldstein is talking about you Pat.

    Comment by Joe — 3/6/2009 @ 8:58 am”

    The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.

    nk (502275)

  53. #50 Clearly too much time has passed since the New Deal. The schools teach that it alleviated the Depression, which is not true, and there was a big distraction that took place between 1941 and 1945 after which happy days were here again and few did much analysis of how or why the unhappy days were gone.

    Hey RTO, how do you suppose we paid for those “happy days” between 1941 and 1945, if the New Deal failed?

    Oiram (983921)

  54. Please ignore the troll.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  55. “The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.”

    Jeff hates being ignored.

    Hence, OUTLAW!!!!!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  56. daleyrocks – yes, that’s Joe’s point. Stir up bad blood between Pat and Jeff rather than seek the truth.

    Comment by steve miller — 3/6/2009 @ 9:44 am

    steve – I believe he was the same Joe chiding Patrick for his lack of respoce to Balko. Jeff has also slapped him around several times on PW. He is a classic shit stirrer.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  57. Stop Barak!!

    CinnamongirlUF (137af1)

  58. Mario really does not know very much …

    JD (771d22)

  59. (Declines to remove tophat and smoking jacket and don leather G-string and ample coating of baby oil.)

    Some people like JeetKwonDoJustsu and grappling seminars and some people don’t.

    nk (502275)

  60. Limbaugh has just now, once again, for the umpty-umpth time, explained what Pat seems to think Limbaugh has not explained heretofore. Pat has asked a number of times over the past couple of days, show me a quote where Limbaugh differentiates between the two most plausible readings of his initial statement. Personally, I don’t think Limbaugh was ever unclear. But so long as Pat will continue to insist on the possibility that Limbaugh could have intended the failure of the economy and the concurrent pain of the American citizen, so long must we seek a definitive answer directly from Limbaugh’s mouth. I think, Pat, that at long last you will find your answer in today’s transcript, at approximately 12:45pm to 12:58 Eastern. Oh, and for my money, the key phrase in his initial statement?

    Somebody’s gotta say it.

    sdferr (8643ba)

  61. I think you should re-read your previous post, Pat, then read my response to the amplification of your post you left in my comments. I added both in an update to my original post.

    It is disingenuous, incidentally, to suggest that nobody answered your hypothetical. You posed it in my comments last evening and I addressed it, just as I addressed each argument you made in its turn. You chose not to respond to anything I wrote — my being a lout and so therefore beneath you. Mustn’t get my stink on you, I suppose — though in my defense I love my wife and son, and really do have the best interests of the country at heart. So I’m a good man and all.

    I’ll say this as simply as I can, one last time: You shouldn’t be concerning yourself with how easy it is for the media to twist things. You should instead be working to make it less productive to do so.

    The problems certain speech causes for politicians who don’t have the stones to tell the media to go to the source if they want answers is something that would vanish the minute they took that tack and refused to let the media frame meaning by choosing context and venue.

    I’ve written on this kind of thing before, notably here and here. Taken together, these two pieces address the thinking that underlies all of Patrick’s hypotheticals and provide a clear argument for why I believe the course of argument he takes here is the wrong one.

    Read. Consider. Respond.

    Lord knows that in the course of 420+ comments at my place, Pat wouldn’t.

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  62. Oh, and daley’s right.

    OUTLAW! is really only a cry for attention. Beyond that, it has no meaning whatever to anyone at my site.

    Why, it’s like he’s in my head!

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  63. You should instead be working to make it less productive to do so.

    Why?

    h2u (81b7bd)

  64. Because the New Deal HAD to be abandoned after 7 December 1941, Oiram.

    Instead of trying to control business and commerce, which is what both New Deals are about, FDR was forced into a co-operation with business. (That’s stimulus, BTW–or as close as Governemtn can get).

    Want a current example of how we could do that again? The GSA maintains a very large automotive fleet. They buy and sell thousands of vehicles every year. President Obama says he’s in favor of “green jobs” and “energy independence” and alternative fuels. The opportunity is staring him in the face. Make a deal with the Big 3. GSA will buy X number of electric vehicles over these years, X number of Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles, X number of CNG vehicles…(OMB will have to crunch some numbers–the different alt-fuel vehicle types aren’t yet appropriate for all purposes). Petroleum Gas vehicles will be relgated to only those uses where the otehr will not, as yet, do. Eventaully they will be phased out. And the alt-fuels get to really compete and and real market share and actual R&D $$ to be improved.

    And it expands. You need CNG fuel stations. Begin with the Interstate highway system andoffer the Oil Companies a guarnateed user base tomake it worth their while to put CNG stations along the interstates.

    And it expands…..

    And that’s how we recovered from the Depression. Ford bult aircraft motors and GM bult Tanks and Dodge built Jeeps. Because they had to and it was good for everyone to do so. And it expanded. That we also didn’t have to rebuild ourselves from WWII helped, the Marshall Plan we could afford and created new markets for all that expanded production capacity now retooled to peacetime activities.

    That’s not what they teach in High School history–but it is what actually happened.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  65. Has anyone on the left come out and said they were disturbed by the beating of the drum by the administration to destroy a private citizen

    Hawkins (3d318d)

  66. Hawkins, of course not. It’s Rush Limbaugh!

    You can suspend common decency when the WH goes after an enemy of progress.

    It’s only fair.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  67. My interpretation is that Rush wants the US to survive as a small-government, free-market Republic that emphasizes – and protects – individual rights, and that any imposition of Socialist policies will destroy that vision, and will ultimately cause more pain & suffering to the populace than any short-term dislocation from a down-turn in the business cycle.

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  68. Interesting, thoughtful post…

    One point missed in a lot of this is that my feelings about the war or Rush’s feeling about the economy don’t really matter at all. Nobody died or was injured because I opposed the war and nobody will lose their job because Rush Limbaugh isn’t in a favor of government intervention.

    Now..if my job had been to do something in the war, I wouldn’t have botched it on purpose. I teach computer graphics, the military was a client during the war, and I did that (admittedly inconsequential) job really well.

    Also, I didn’t want any specific tactic to fail – I opposed Bush’s Iraq strategy. And of course, I opposed it not because I wanted to kowtow to America’s enemies, but for the opposite reason – I felt the war strengthened them. You can disagree and probably do, but that is my position.

    Lee Stranahan (4f3dce)

  69. I am in Jeff’s head.

    Mind meld.

    OUTLAW!!!!!

    Where’s that armadillo, blue pill or red pill?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  70. “Jeff Goldstein is talking about you Pat.

    Comment by Joe — 3/6/2009 @ 8:58 am”

    Joe – It’s certainly nice of you to want to keep things stirred up between Patrick and Jeff, but it’s a pity that you don’t understand both sides of the argument. Keep trying.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 3/6/2009 @ 9:37 am

    I am sure you can educate me daleyrocks!

    Joe (dcebbd)

  71. You can suspend common decency when the WH goes after an enemy of progress.

    Yes. Especially if the WH can count on some percentage of those who agree with what he meant not to oppose that suspension because he said it provocatively.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  72. Comment by Jeff G. on 3/6 @ 12:35 pm #

    Why write about Brooks? He’s a feckless company man and everyone knows it. Let the NYT die.

    I was serious last night. I want out of the ridiculousness that the conservative blogosphere is becoming. I want to evolve into something more useful.

    I have no desire any longer to debate people like Patterico, who can get away with not having to answer a single point — and yet still has defenders worried about my tone.

    MY WORD!

    Instead, I want to take these arguments out of the realm of personalities so that they reach a wider audience. If I’m right for part of the job, I’m willing. If not, somebody else can do it. The important thing is that the arguments be made and the message delivered. If we don’t stop the assault on language, we will necessarily drift toward totalitarianism and liberal fascism. NECESSARILY. Meaning, it’s built into the premises we are accepting.

    I have a strategy — a shame strategy, one that plays to the entitlement generation, that I think will resonate and could turn the tides. And I want to begin getting the word out.

    Doing it on a blog that is reviled by the left (when they talk about me, they use an alternate spelling of my name, “Godlstein,” and never link my actual posts) and ignored by many high traffic sites on the right for the crime of having taken some of them on in a way that hurt their feelings, I guess, is no way to get things done.

    This site has to change. The OUTLAW thing — which daleyrocks suggested over at Patterico’s was really just my cry for attention — needs to take on a life of its own, whether I’m around to steward the thing or not.

    To get that rolling, we’ll need everyone who is interested to use the entirety of their networking skills. We’ll need to set up some sort of foundation and portal. We’ll need to organize events, host debates and speeches, and — most importantly — remain honest and true to our principles.

    happy is right: people can present me as a whining attention whore, but in truth, I am like I am because as time has gone on, I’ve watched the online classical liberal movement head backwards, to the point where the GOP ran John McCain, and Patterico and Allah are arguing that Rush’s provocateurism places an undo burden on conservatives hoping to win over the soft middle (who, we’re told, don’t understand nuance) — and it literally hurts me.

    I care, but I do so poorly — in such a way that I get depressed or angry or bitter. which unfortunately means that I alienate people online on occasion. My wife would much prefer I just quit altogether, and I’ve come close on several occasions.

    But the problem is, how can I stay away when I know what’s happening, and when I feel that, given the opportunity, some of the arguments I’ve articulated here ocould make a difference?

    The real truth is — and I said this earlier — I don’t much care how the message gets out, or who gets the credit. I’ve only complained about being frozen out because it means the arguments are being frozen out.

    And it’s time to change that.

    OUTLAWISM doesn’t have its own PJM. It doesn’t have Vanity Fair. Or Media Matters. But that doesn’t mean it can’t.

    Email me if you have any desire to sign on to the next phase of PW. If you are prepared to work, so am I.

    The Patterico-Protein Wisdom Thread

    Joe (dcebbd)

  73. #63 Instead of trying to control business and commerce, which is what both New Deals are about, FDR was forced into a co-operation with business. (That’s stimulus, BTW–or as close as Governemtn can get).

    I did know about the CO-OP RTO (Aircraft, tank and jeeps), only because my father fought for us in WW2. And your right it should be taught in schools.

    But that helped with a percentage of the cost of WW2. Even if it was as high as 60%, for arguments sake, that still doesn’t account for where the rest of the money came from.

    Do you think this was needed, and could it have been done at the beginning of our current wars?

    You do have some good ideas there.

    Oiram (983921)

  74. Hey RTO, how do you suppose we paid for those “happy days” between 1941 and 1945, if the New Deal failed

    Does it hurt to be this stupid, Oiram? Seriously, does your brain ever send panic signals throughout your nervous system when you’re about to type something so boneheaded? Or have you grown immune to the pain?

    The fact is, the national debt as a percentage of GDP was at an all-time high during WWII. Because of the growth after the war, the debt/GDP ratio shrank in the boom that followed.

    So, we “paid” for the happy days of 1941-1945 by borrowing heavily on the future.

    Steverino (69d941)

  75. Do Democrats have a monopoly on angry paranoid dwarves? Here’s a snippet from a deranged screed by Clintonite and Obama economic advisor Robert Reich from his post in today’s Salon:

    “Republicans have made no secret of their wish to blame Obama for the bad economy, and to stir up as much populist rage against his so-called socialist tendencies as politically possible. History shows how effective demagogic ravings can be when a public is stressed economically. Make no mistake: Angry right-wing populism lurks just below the surface of the terrible American economy, ready to be launched not only at Obama but also at liberals, intellectuals, gays, blacks, Jews, the mainstream media, coastal elites, crypto socialists, and any other potential target of paranoid opportunity.”

    I think Hax and Reich would get along very well.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  76. #73 So, we “paid” for the happy days of 1941-1945 by borrowing heavily on the future.

    Nope

    Oiram (983921)

  77. Comment by Jeff G. on 3/6 @ 12:35 pm #

    I was serious last night. I want out of the ridiculousness that the conservative blogosphere is becoming. I want to evolve into something more useful.

    I have no desire any longer to debate people like Patterico, who can get away with not having to answer a single point — and yet still has defenders worried about my tone.

    MY WORD!

    _____________________

    END OF THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ____________________________________________

    “This site has to change. The OUTLAW thing — which daleyrocks suggested over at Patterico’s was really just my cry for attention”

    Well, perhaps I was joshing.

    I believe I understand you positions adequately.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  78. Joe – Thank you so much for keeping everyone informed. Dipshit.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  79. Comment by Steverino — 3/6/2009 @ 10:44 am

    To ask the blind to suddenly see is a waste of time.

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  80. AD, I already know Oiram is a lying sack of manure. I just like poking fun at the imbecile.

    Steverino (69d941)

  81. “A co-operation with business” is how a blinkered authoritarian refers the US government setting prices for goods and commodities, rationing consumer production, and telling manufacturers their contracts with the government are unfair and can be unilaterally changed ex post facto (see the Truman Commission) is “co-operation”; whereas a 7% bump in taxes for 2% of the population and health insurance for everyone is “OMG Socialism.”

    timb (92efa0)

  82. Mario really does not know very much …

    Comment by JD — 3/6/2009 @ 10:05 am

    DJ knows quite a bit, but it also knows how to spin it.

    Oiram (983921)

  83. I not only have no problem with the second interpretation, but will not vote for a candidate that eschews it.

    I cannot hope that socialism will work because 1) it never has for long, and 2) it penalizes the worthy and rewards the unworthy.

    As far as offering a choice between people being out of work or not, go look at the history of the 1930′s. FDR had his way for at least two terms and didn’t make a dent. Only war solved it, both by ramping up the US economy and devastating all competition.

    So, put me down for “Hell no.”

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  84. To ask the blind to suddenly see is a waste of time.

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS — 3/6/2009 @ 10:58 am

    If the “sighted” actually left this site, they might learn a thing or two….. but I realize that would be asking way too much.

    Continue the narrow vision my friend.

    Oiram (983921)

  85. Not to say I want Rush as party spokesman. Unless he wants to quit his day job and be RNC Chair, of course.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  86. Mario: “Continue the narrow vision my friend.”

    Mario, you have that exactly backwards. You are the one with no vision and the inability to see.

    But what can we expect from someone who signs their name backwards?

    GM Roper who wants DRJ back on Patterico's Pontifications (85dcd7)

  87. Oh c’mon repoR!

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  88. I can see how well government health care for everyone will go.
    To save money certain things will not be allowed and the minute the government deems your life not worth living they can save cash by calling Jack Kevorkian.

    I bet timb cant wait for that type of Marxist immoral society.

    Of course he could just be asking questions.

    ML (14488c)

  89. People! Stop poking the tiger with the stick!

    steve miller (c76b20)

  90. #84 Dolt who can’t read.

    Oiram (983921)

  91. GM Roper: I like your website, and congratulations on keeping you-know-what at bay.

    Steve, the solution is to post all of our comments in reverse type.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  92. People! Stop poking the tiger with the stick!

    Comment by steve miller — 3/6/2009 @ 11:20 am

    Ironic Steve, that’s what I’ve been saying about all the attention Limbaugh has been getting.

    Oiram (983921)

  93. .noihsaf livic ni etabed tonnac sretsop emos ,dnah rehto eht nO.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  94. Hey Dolts, take a clue from your friend RTO Trainer on how to talk to all these damn liberal “Trolls”.

    Intelligence and Conservatism sometimes do go hand in hand.

    Oiram (983921)

  95. #91 “In a civil fashion”

    Oiram (983921)

  96. Yeah, reading is not your fault, ML. I said health insurance for everyone. No one in a position of influence in America advocates for single payer.

    Maybe try to read slower, dude?

    timb (92efa0)

  97. #91 “In a civil fashion”

    Comment by Oiram — 3/6/2009 @ 11:27 am

    This ability comes from arguing with dyslexics all day ;)

    Oiram (983921)

  98. Comment by steve miller — 3/6/2009 @ 11:20 am

    Can we use a “shark stick”?

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  99. Oh, for some civil commentary between those of different ideologies . . .

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! (a2d4c6)

  100. #97 I can’t agree with you more on that one Bro.

    Oiram (983921)

  101. From the liberal perspective, it looks like Mr. Limbaugh and others who say they want Pres. Obama to fail are doing so because they beleive that, if Pres. Obama fails, it will lead to Republicans regaining power; and it’s contemptible to be willing to worsen an economic downturn for political gain.

    I don’t think you know his meaning. I would say that we have seen Obama in action for 6 weeks and it’s clear to me that Rush was talking about the country, not the Republicans. I am getting very discouraged about the future my kids will see.

    I also don’t think it is a plan he has been hiding and waiting to unleash on the country. I just think Obama has vague leftist theories that have never been tested in a modern society (which Russia and Cuba are not). He is incompetent and arrogant at the same time. His treatment of the British Prime Minister is simply incomprehensible. Where in the world is he getting these ideas ? Big Bill Thompson ?

    I believe that Mr. Limbaugh’s opposition to President Obama’s policies is earnest and derived from first principles, just as I believed that liberal opposition to the Iraq war was … but the opposition looks awful to both members of the opposite side and to moderates, for precisely the same reasons.

    Comment by aphrael

    I think moderates will watch their 401ks drop another thousand points and start to wake up to what they have done. I can’t imagine that Obama knows what he is doing with the economy but, let’s say it turns out OK. That would be fatal for Rush. Big deal. He’s one guy with enough money to live very well the rest of his life. If Obama is wrong, it takes down the lives of millions of people.

    Also, if Obama stopped doing anything and let the country run itself, it would do much better. The bear market is now being driven by Obama’s plans. He could suspend the mark-to-market rule and naked shorts and the collapse would probably end. He doesn’t have to wreck everyone’s lives but that’s what he is doing.

    MIke K (8df289)

  102. Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who implores DRJ to remain at Patterico! — 3/6/2009 @ 11:31 am

    Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (#66).

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  103. #94 Timb

    I am four steps ahead of you, try to keep up.

    So you clearly advocate for the government to be in direct competition with the private insurance sector!
    And you claim that is not socialism?

    Maybe all private practice like attorneys and such should just in the government domain.
    Now of course if say a non-Marxist was POTUS you be freaking out over all this government control.

    As I said before, if I was you I would ask for a refund on that “college education”, because you got ripped off big time.

    ML (14488c)

  104. #101

    Maybe all private practice like attorneys and such should just in the government domain.
    Now of course if say a non-Marxist was POTUS you be freaking out over all this government control.

    Some are, they’re called “court appointed attorneys”.

    Maybe we shouldn’t have them as well? :(

    Oiram (983921)

  105. I wrote: “You shouldn’t be concerning yourself with how easy it is for the media to twist things. You should instead be working to make it less productive to do so.”

    h2u’s response: “Why?”

    My short response, given that my long response was contained in the links I provided, and was evidently too difficult to click through to, is this: taking care of the latter takes care of the former. Whereas trying to fight the former is a losing battle, as the case of both Bennett and Snow should have made clear.

    The former addresses the tactic; the latter combats the strategy.

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  106. Jeff G,

    I don’t think you understood. Why must Patterico be on-board with your strategy when both strategies working in tandem is likely better?

    As a commenter over at AoSHQ put it:

    What’s wrong with striving for both a flawless offense and a robust defense?

    Patterico is right; you are right. So getting your panties in a bunch over this disagreement regarding tactics isn’t doing anything but make you look rather petty.

    Every true conservative wants the Obama strategy to fail. But sometimes it helps to not phrase that motive in a crass manner.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  107. # 102

    Some are, they’re called “court appointed attorneys”.
    You are serious aren’t you?

    That would only be true if those “court appointed attorneys”, were public defenders.
    But they are not, they are private practice Lawyers, appointed by the court.

    I am sure that little nuance is lost on the likes of you and timb.

    ML (14488c)

  108. #73 So, we “paid” for the happy days of 1941-1945 by borrowing heavily on the future.

    Nope

    Yep. Actually.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  109. Limbaugh was not crass. People who intentionally distort his plain meaning, on the other hand, are taken for the nuanced among us, but oh, they are not crass. Never think it.

    sdferr (8643ba)

  110. Gimme a break, Patterico. Your “praise” of Limbaugh was just snide, left-handed complimenting. ‘Rush is really good at drawing attention to himself’\ ‘Rush has a succesful radio program’/ ‘Rush knows what he’s doing when says provocative things’… You compliment Limbaugh the way Clinton praised Obama. It’s obvious you admire him about as much as you would olberman, and your contempt shows through your laudations. I can live with you disagreeing about what Limbaugh said or how he should say it, but to insinuate that you support him is dishonest.

    joe (879eed)

  111. I don’t think you understood. Why must Patterico be on-board with your strategy when both strategies working in tandem is likely better?

    Okay, clearly you don’t understand. I believe the strategies don’t work in tandem. In fact, I believe Patterico’s strategy to be dangerous for reasons I’ve written about extensively, and have linked here for your perusal and consideration.

    If you aren’t willing to address the arguments, fine. But that hardly makes me the petty one.

    The fact is, the kernel assumptions that lie at the heart of one strategy materially undermine the foundation on which classical liberalism is built. That’s the argument I make. So far, no one seems willing to address that.

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  112. “Limbaugh was not crass. People who intentionally distort his plain meaning, on the other hand, are taken for the nuanced among us, but oh, they are not crass. Never think it.”

    Limbaugh belittles Barney Frank with a parody sung to the tune of Dancing Queen. He. Is. Crass. I love him for it, but he’s not an artful communicator.

    Why can’t we have both crass and polite orators delivering the conservative message? I see no harm in that…

    h2u (81b7bd)

  113. The advantage of this discussion is it keeps the lively debate in the conservatives’ corner. The porkulus is lost, but it means there’s little public outcry for porkulus. Instead, the debate is on spending limits and better, smaller, reasonable government.

    Like I said, Bambi’s apparently never read Uncle Remus stories.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  114. Goldstein petty? Hah

    ML, public defenders, much like prosecutors (hint: Patterico) are funded with public money. Even legal aid societies are financed with mostly public money.

    But, more to the point, health insurance, much like auto insurance, can be mandated by the state (in this case with state subsidizing the cheapest policies). Thus, everyone has insurance. Ask Mitt Romney.

    PS Jeff, I liked the Burn Notice finale last evening. It was nice to avoid the A Team-esque and finally see someone get shot by the good guys. Such a fine show.

    timb (92efa0)

  115. So far, no one seems willing to address that.

    Because I don’t think it’s a valid argument.

    There is always room for a message to be presented through multiple channels. In some ways conservatism is aided by the blunt and crass Rush Limbaugh; in other ways it is hurt. In some ways conservatism is aided by polite and reasonable pundits; in other ways it is hurt.

    What you seem to want, Jeff G, is for us to not only put all our eggs in one basket but to then chuck said eggs at passing cars sporting Obama bumper stickers.

    I can see a time and place for that, but it’s not 24/7/365.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  116. Brother Bradley – That would require more like alphrael and Leviticus, and less like Marion, Hacks, and that little stalkerish-type person.

    JD (771d22)

  117. # 112

    Good non-answer, pretty typical for you though.
    Because that’s just how you troll.

    ML (14488c)

  118. Because I don’t think it’s a valid argument.

    Now that would make sense as the practice is your metier.

    sdferr (8643ba)

  119. But they are not, they are private practice Lawyers, appointed by the court.

    I am sure that little nuance is lost on the likes of you and timb.

    Comment by ML — 3/6/2009 @ 12:05 pm

    Court Appointed or Public Defenders, who pays for them?

    Oiram (983921)

  120. Because I don’t think it’s a valid argument.

    I’m not convinced you know what the argument is. Least ways, you’ve given no indication of understanding it.

    What it is not is an argument that says there isn’t room for messages to be sent through multiple channels, or phrased in a variety of ways.

    You also don’t seem to understand what I want. You have bought into the way Patterico has been caricaturing me on Twitter, no doubt.

    I am not advocating constant invective. In fact, my arguments have nothing whatever to do with such things, suggesting to me yet again that you haven’t bothered to look at them.

    My argument has to do with how we believe language works, and the consequences of those beliefs becoming institutionalized.

    At any rate, the links are still there should you ever get around to addressing them. Dismissing them with a glib “I don’t think it’s valid” is rather weak tea, given the extent to which they’re argued, but hey, some people are better at dismissing things out of hand than others.

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  121. #73 So, we “paid” for the happy days of 1941-1945 by borrowing heavily on the future.

    Nope

    Yep. Actually.

    Comment by RTO Trainer — 3/6/2009 @ 12:06 pm

    Tax rate back then, and unemployment rate going down (contrary to historians) in this room had a lot to do with it as well RTO.

    Oiram (983921)

  122. #119 But never mind. Many here are not interested in what caused the greatest economic boom America has ever known. They are more interested in labeling it socialism and un-aplicable.

    Oiram (983921)

  123. #114 Sometimes the DJ spins a broken record :(

    Oiram (983921)

  124. You have bought into the way Patterico has been caricaturing me on Twitter, no doubt.

    Ugh. Twitter is the worst thing to happen to the internet since MySpace. I don’t use it nor have any idea what Patterico is tweeting.

    My argument has to do with how we believe language works, and the consequences of those beliefs becoming institutionalized.

    I understand that argument, Jeff G. I truly do. And I think you’re a very funny guy, which is usually something that comes with a great grasp of language. But I still think you’re wrong about this. Nobody seems to want you “to be cowed by their linguistic presumptuousness.” They simply would like a little acknowledgement that working within the framework of the Mainstream Media is sometimes a necessary evil.

    And, unless I’m terribly mistaken, you and Protein Wisdom seem to believe that the only solution is to tell the MSM to go fu¢k itself. Well, I don’t personally think that’s a wise idea. There is room in the conservative movement for cunning linguists such as yourself — but there is also room for more reasoned and mainstream pundits as well.

    Why can’t we use both avenues to try and get the message across that Barack Obama is screwing up everything?

    h2u (81b7bd)

  125. Dishonesty and asshattery seem to be congenital conditions for the likes of Mario and timmah.

    Jeff G – See your little buddy timmyb commenting here?

    JD (771d22)

  126. Oh, no the economy under the complete control of the Federal Govt and the 90% tax rate which resulted a huge period of economic growth is an example of terrible time, oiram.

    Here’s the graph and it shows how silly RTO’s argument is.

    timb (92efa0)

  127. dj, do you imagine he will threaten to physically assault him here too? Dear lord, dj, calling in your dad? How quaint?

    timb (92efa0)

  128. Fuck off, stalker-ish type creepy dude.

    JD (771d22)

  129. bmit- You have succeeded. I will quit commenting when you are around, because you are such an amoral dishonest little twit. Enjoy. Feel free to act as you have in the past, and others will treat you with the disdain and disgust that you so deserve.

    JD (771d22)

  130. #124 timb, showing them those graphs will only prompt them to find Amity Shlae’s upside down ones.

    Many in this room are dyslexia and will only believe her’s.

    Oiram (983921)

  131. #126……. And JD takes his broken records and goes home.

    Gonna Miss Him :(

    Oiram (983921)

  132. Eric, thank you very much, I put effort into it and I’m glad you like it.

    My goal is to replace Allahpundit as Pattrico’s favorite blog. :))

    GM Roper who wants DRJ back on Patterico's Pontifications (85dcd7)

  133. h2u,

    If you think the debate is over polite vs.crass, you’ve missed the boat.

    It’s about owning the meanings of what we say and refusing to allow others to reframe it, interpreting it into something other than than what we meant.

    Patterico refuses to consider that it doesn’t matter that that reinterpretation will be made no matter the tone of the original comment. Thinking that somehow if we’re just nice to the bullies they’ll leave us alone.

    If that means defending a crass comment, so long as it’s true, I’m up for that. Patterico is willing to abandon the field and concede the truth over an issue of tone.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  134. Tax rate back then, and unemployment rate going down (contrary to historians) in this room had a lot to do with it as well RTO.

    Clearly not. We’re still paying interest on those 1940′s deficits.

    Tax revenues have held at a fairly consistent 21% of GDP since WWII as well, no matter unemployment or tax rates.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  135. WW-2 financing….
    mariO evidently has never heard of “War Bonds”, and how they were used to 1- soak-up available Dollars from the economy to lessen consumer demand for the limited commodities that were available, 2- push the cost of the War as far into the future as possible, 3- focus the American public on “paying” for the War and Freedom.

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  136. I argued my position all night on the Protein Wisdom thread, and daleyrocks got it perfectly. His argument was met with the response I knew I’d get if I said the same thing. I’ve already done that dance before and won’t be repeating it. As I told one of the fellows over there, if your goal is to insult me, I can find other people to talk to.

    Over at PW Goldstein sez:

    “First of all, I have never been to CPAC, nor have I ever been invited. I have, however, been told that anybody who matters in conservatism was there, which means I don’t much matter. Hence, what I think is not important.”

    And a few sentences later he says:

    “In fact, in the whole of this thread, Mr Frey — who is a solid and well-respected voice in the conservative movement . . .”

    I wasn’t invited to CPAC.

    Maybe that’s not obvious because I don’t complain about it. But I wasn’t.

    Patterico (31a2e1)

  137. It’s about owning the meanings of what we say and refusing to allow others to reframe it, interpreting it into something other than than what we meant.

    But you can’t STOP people from framing your words in unintended ways, especially if the people doing it are members of the Mainstream Media. That’s just reality.

    Look, I think it would be great if we didn’t have to pussyfoot around certain words and phrases simply because they could be twisted around and used as ammunition against us. But reality is a harsh mistress and that’s exactly what we must do if we wish to be given a soapbox on which to stand.

    I don’t think Jeff is wrong; I don’t think Patterico is wrong. There is good to be had from speaking your mind freely and throwing caution to the wind as, just as there is good to be had from being diplomatic and cautious.

    What doesn’t help is trying to pretend like these rules don’t exist. They do and if you want to be taken seriously by the MSM you gotta play by their rules.

    It’s truly as simple as that.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  138. # 117

    So I must not be self-employed, unless I pay myself.

    I think this is a waste of time, you don’t get it and you never will.

    ML (14488c)

  139. So we can add having only a selectively fragile ego to your long list of virtues.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  140. I didn’t know that thread was going on. Joe was falling down on the job.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  141. …invited to CPAC…
    I would think that anyone truly interested in going could find a way to acquire credentials.

    A lot of people need to, or should, grow up (and I do include myself in that statement – but then, WTH do I know, I’m just another SS recipient causing a drain on the public weal)!

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  142. Look, I think it would be great if we didn’t have to pussyfoot around certain words and phrases simply because they could be twisted around and used as ammunition against us. But reality is a harsh mistress and that’s exactly what we must do if we wish to be given a soapbox on which to stand.

    No.

    It’s what we must not do.

    You can’t wait for the soapbox to be brought to you. You have to go get your own.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  143. I hope this blog fails.

    Brian G. (7c54e7)

  144. #132 You mean the War Bonds issued by the U.S. Government? AD, aren’t you afraid that they were a form of socialism?

    Next thing you know you’ll be for nationalizing our banks.

    O.k., war bonds now funded the war. So how were people in the 30′s and 40′s able to afford these bonds if there was so much unemployment created by FDR?

    Oiram (983921)

  145. Tim and Mario do not seem to understand that only the “little people” paid the 90% tax rates. Roosevelt did it to punish the wealthy neighbors of his in the Hudson Valley who hated him because he was a Democrat. He thought it hilarious but it got him a capital strike and prolonged the Depression. After the war we got all sorts of ways around the top rates. One of them was the professional corporation because doctors couldn’t hide income the way businessmen could. Howard House and Howard Payne were two LA surgeons I knew well and they were the ones who eventually won the tax court case that allowed professional corporations. Until then there were all sorts of ways the tax rate was avoided.

    What Reagan realized, along with Jack Kemp and Roth, was that tax revenue had stayed the same percentage of GDP regardless of marginal rates. The concluded that lowering rates would increase economic activity and make a larger pie and that would result in everyone making more money.

    That worked as they thought it would although Reagan did not get spending controlled. What Obama is doing is reminiscent of Roosevelt in 1933. He may get the same result, too.

    The tax avoiders, like his Sec Treas, will find a way to keep avoiding paying. You will not be so lucky. Of course, you think you won’t be paying the higher rates but you will. You could take 100% of the income of the over $250k group and not come close to paying for Obama’s spending. As it is, they pay over 50% now.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  146. You can’t wait for the soapbox to be brought to you. You have to go get your own.

    And such is why Rush Limbaugh has an untouchable radio program and Jeff G. has his blog. But don’t expect the MSM to allow you into their house without first removing your shoes.

    It’s their party and they will cry if they want to.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  147. “… because they could be twisted around and used as ammunition against us…”

    This is why PC has destroyed public debate in this country.
    We have become afraid to debate the actual meaning of words,
    and have allowed our opponents to frame the debate by defining the terms
    regardless of what those true meanings are.
    Straight out of the Marxist dialectic!

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  148. You can disagree and probably do, but that is my position.

    Well stated, sir, and although I disagree with your position, I truly support your right to say it. Would that more people on your side of the fence had behaved in a similar manner during the past 8 years.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  149. Jeff G.
    How has Patterico been caricaturing you, as you said @ 118?

    While I lean more to your side on this particular matter, I think Patterico has been fair in his disagreement.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (a2d4c6)

  150. This is why PC has destroyed public debate in this country.

    I agree wholeheartedly. But until political correctness is cast aside by our political and pundit classes that isn’t going to change.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  151. Comment by Oiram — 3/6/2009 @ 1:29 pm

    You are a monument to your own obtuseness and irrelevance to the debate.
    Tell us, at family gatherings do you still sit at the “kid’s table”, or do they even find you an unwelcome guest?

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  152. Comment by h2u — 3/6/2009 @ 1:33 pm

    It is up to us, the great unwashed, to hold their PC up to ridicule to such a degree that they eventually must discard it out of sheer embarrassment.
    This is what Rush does on a daily basis!

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  153. So we can add having only a selectively fragile ego to your long list of virtues.
    Comment by RTO Trainer — 3/6/2009 @ 1:23 pm

    The fact that Maggie said in defense of Jeff is the funniest thing I have read on this site!

    timb (8f04c0)

  154. Tim and Mario do not seem to understand that only the “little people” paid the 90% tax rates.

    What makes you think that either of them have ever paid any taxes in their lifetimes, Mike? Their rantings about financial matters betrays long careers in the public sectors, along with nice pensions from the fatted calf of actual taxpayers. Their further excoriations of a vague concept called “business” also indicate a lack of ever having worked in an actual for – profit enterprise. I saw these types continuously during my time as an ad salesman for the classical music station here, which was replete with refugees from NPR and the public school systems – completely dead from the neck up regarding economics and the capitalistic system in general. They think that money flows inward from the gov’t to the local serfs, not the other way around.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  155. What you seem to want, Jeff G, is for us to not only put all our eggs in one basket but to then chuck said eggs at passing cars sporting Obama bumper stickers.

    And, unless I’m terribly mistaken, you and Protein Wisdom seem to believe that the only solution is to tell the MSM to go fu¢k itself.

    Yup, terribly mistaken.

    The solution is to stand up for the intent of what is said, rather than accepting the spin and apologizing for it.

    In this example, Rush was asked to say what his hope for Obamas presidency was. Patternicos take on his answer is it was too ambiguous and easily mis-interpreted.

    Jeffs assertion is that if you accept that your words can given different meaning than you intended, then ANYTHING you say, provocative or not, will be used against you.

    It does little good to couch everything you say in the most diplomatic of terms, if everything you say is open for re-interpretation.

    It isn’t putting all your eggs in one basket. It’s not letting someone you’re trying to sell them to call your eggs rocks, and then paying them to take those rocks off your hands.

    lee (2f1728)

  156. This is what Rush does on a daily basis!

    And I love him for it. But that doesn’t mean I want Rush Limbaugh to the leading voice of conservatism! We need another Goldwater…

    h2u (81b7bd)

  157. #148 And there is the childish remark by a fellow tribe leader, all too predictable.

    Interesting, thought maybe you might have been above that AD :(

    Oiram (983921)

  158. The fact that Maggie said in defense of Jeff is the funniest thing I have read on this site!

    Once again, you need to take your idiotic personal peeves outside – or have you been banned everywhere else at this point?

    Tell us, at family gatherings do you still sit at the “kid’s table”, or do they even find you an unwelcome guest?

    Neither – he sits under the local bridge each day.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  159. Interesting, thought maybe you might have been above that AD

    When the adults are talking, children should be seen but not heard.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  160. I don’t know, folks. That term “tribe” sounds very, very racist.

    I also enjoy all the snotty comments about Amity Shae’s book…from people who have never published…a book.

    Who knew? Once again, it is so much easier to tear something down than to build something.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  161. So how were people in the 30’s and 40’s able to afford these bonds if there was so much unemployment created by FDR?

    `

    Again, you are lacking in critical imagination if you have to ask this question.

    The war bonds weren’t sold until after the war started. What preceded them was men joining the armed forces and vacating jobs that were filled by those not serving. The increase in manufacturing as part of the war effort also created new jobs. All of those newly employed people and the US servicemen had the cash to buy the bonds. But to say that Roosevelt created this situation as part of the New Deal is just lunacy.

    Steverino (69d941)

  162. Patterico posts on Limbaugh’s I hope he fails speech arguing that Limbaugh should speak in another manner, because Limbaugh knows full well his speech will be distorted and it is possible that he speak in a way less easily twisted by the press and political opponents. That, Pat believes, will result in a better outcome for the message Limbaugh wants to convey. Goldstein responds, arguing that it isn’t the manner of speech that needs to be fought over, but the intentional distortions applied to whatever speech acts Limbaugh (or any of us) may commit. Wrest back from the interpreter the lousy interpretations of the intent you, the speaker, have in putting words in the world. Pat reposts on the same subject he began with, citing a new example to bolster his original argument.

    Comes h2u to write:

    Every true conservative wants the Obama strategy to fail. But sometimes it helps to not phrase that motive in a crass manner.

    “…to not phrase that motive in a crass manner.”

    To which I respond:

    Limbaugh was not crass. People who intentionally distort his plain meaning, on the other hand, are taken for the nuanced among us, but oh, they are not crass. Never think it.

    What probable aspect of “was not crass” about Limbaugh could I have been referring to? Could the response be to the aspect of Limbaugh that shares in “Every conservative…wants the Obama strategy to fail.”? Could it have been “phrase that motive”?

    Or was it to Limbaugh’s mockeries of Barney Frank that I was referring, do you think? Or other mockeries of Pres. Obama himself, or Speaker Pelosi perhaps? Well, no, to none of those, as it happens. For in the context of an argument over Limbaugh’s I hope he fails, I was – surprise! – pointing at that very speech! and making the claim that that speech was not crass! But what does h2u then say?

    After quoting my comment above, this is what he says, confirming his deep embrace of essentialism:

    Limbaugh belittles Barney Frank with a parody sung to the tune of Dancing Queen. He. Is. Crass. I love him for it, but he’s not an artful communicator.

    So, is this a simple misunderstanding? Or an intentional distortion? Whichever it was, it was easy to do, wasn’t it h2u?

    sdferr (8643ba)

  163. #151 DMAC, I have owned a business and I have also worked for business.

    It’s amazing how you really think profit comes from “just deserts”.

    It also amazes me that you think wealth is created by hard work alone, and not without any help from the society that entrepreneurship benefited from.

    Tim and Mario do not seem to understand that only the “little people” paid the 90% tax rates.

    Face it, wealth has benefited from socialized public programs far more than poverty has. Hard to believe, I know when you look at your numbers.

    How in the world was wealth created with 91% tax rates?

    hmmm….. could it be that some of the old wealth respected the society that helped them create their wealth?

    How in the world did they prosper? What incentive did they have?

    Tired of your accusations of ignorance when the argument doesn’t go your way my friend.

    Oiram (983921)

  164. “I think there’s a good parallel between that piece and Rush Limbaugh’s statements that he wants Obama to fail.”

    Then you are functionally illiterate.

    Rush Limbaugh and I want Brackabama to fail in his quest to destroy the United States of America.

    The scumbag maggot from the Huffinglue Post wanted our military to be defeated by a foreign enemy.

    There is no ambiguity in either statement. You should read the text of both again….slowly.

    ccoffer (5fb8e4)

  165. It does little good to couch everything you say in the most diplomatic of terms, if everything you say is open for re-interpretation.

    Not everyone has to do this, lee. But if you want to roll with the MSM you unfortunately do. I don’t see how you’re going to be able to change that.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  166. Interesting, thought maybe you might have been above that AD

    When the adults are talking, children should be seen but not heard.

    Comment by Dmac — 3/6/2009 @ 1:44 pm

    And another one bites the dust……….. sing it.

    Oiram (983921)

  167. I agree wholeheartedly. But until political correctness is cast aside by our political and pundit classes that isn’t going to change.

    And Patterico’s approach, with which you agree, will somehow persuade them to cast aside an effective bludgeon?

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  168. Patterico is right. Why can’t you all see it? We all know Rush means well when he says he wishes Obama failure. We know what he is talking about. That is not the issue. The issue is is that the best way to say it? Is it helpful to the conservative image? Is it wise? Unless we choose to be deliberately obtuse and stubborn.

    Emperor7 (0c8c2c)

  169. For in the context of an argument over Limbaugh’s I hope he fails, I was – surprise! – pointing at that very speech! and making the claim that that speech was not crass!

    sdferr,

    Rush Limbaugh saying that he hopes Barack Obama fails was easily misinterpreted because it lacked refinement. Crass, as defined by the OED, mean lacking refinement. Do you not see how his speech was then crass and your defense of it misguided?

    I agree with Rush — I want Barack Obama to fail — but if I had a national platform and wished to be taken seriously as the leading voice of conservatism I would not say it that way.

    Now I’d argue that Rush said it because he doesn’t necessarily want to be taken seriously as the leading voice of conservatism — he wants to make money. And good for him, ’cause I do too!

    So don’t pretend he wasn’t being crass — he was and he knew it.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  170. Not everyone has to do this, lee. But if you want to roll with the MSM you unfortunately do. I don’t see how you’re going to be able to change that.

    Here’s a hint.

    Steele’s tactics with DL Hughley (or whatever his name is) on CNN, which Patterico seems to be endorsing as a good stategy, is the best example of what NOT to do I can imagine.

    lee (2f1728)

  171. Let’s sees since your official name calling soldier JD has left the building, I guess DMAC and AD have to take his place.

    Big shoes to fill guys. Perhaps you need to go to a spin class at the Y.

    Oiram (983921)

  172. Yeah. Lets make the conservative image more liberal.

    Jesus.

    ccoffer (5fb8e4)

  173. And Patterico’s approach, with which you agree, will somehow persuade them to cast aside an effective bludgeon?

    I don’t think there’s anything we can do. I think Patterico’s approach needs to exist simultaneously with Jeff G’s approach. That’s the best we can hope for at this point in time. Some conservative voices who can run the gauntlet of the PC mainstream media; and some conservative voices who are entertaining, crass and wonderfully brilliant.

    Steele’s tactics with DL Hughley (or whatever his name is) on CNN, which Patterico seems to be endorsing as a good stategy, is the best example of what NOT to do I can imagine.

    Hold the phone, lee. When did Patterico — or anybody here — endorse Michael Steele’s awful leadership? What he did on the D.L. Hughley CNN show was absolutely ridiculous and more unhelpful to the GOP than anything Rush could EVER do.

    But here’s something you’re missing: Steele isn’t a conservative. He’s a Republican. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative and isn’t constrained by partisan shackles.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  174. One of the reasons I like coming here is the exciting “debate.” I put that in quotes because frequently, it is not as much debate as in tossing invective and smartassed remarks back and forth. I am as guilty of that as anyone and I also have to admit to doing it.

    Having said that, from this conservative’s perspective, Mr. O has promised much, in all likelihood far more than he can deliver. I postulate that he is inarticulate as well, without a prepared speech, and cannot tell the nation his goals except in broad strokes that appeal to individuals easily swayed by the “class warfare” schtick of the far left.

    If you look at the specifics however, bills passed and signed with only the author(s) knowledgable about the content, thus as anti-democratic as I can think. If you look at the specifics of actual governance, regardless of who did what to who, the country continues to slide down a very slippery slope with no brakes discernable. His appointments have been a disaster with the Senate confirming individuals that would NEVER have passed muster had a Republican President (or perhaps any other President at any other time) offered them up for slaughter on the butcher’s floor we call Advise and Consent. Am I wrong? And if so, where and why?

    GM Roper who wants DRJ back on Patterico's Pontifications (85dcd7)

  175. I agree with your point on civility and less edginess, Pat.

    I do, however, see this as yet another instance where Rush uses absurdity to illustrate the absurdity of the Left, by using language and tactics employed and excused by, the Left.

    It is highly instructive that good folks on the Right, such as yourself, criticize Rush’s bomb throwing, where nobody of any real standing on the Left ever stands against the myriad irresponsible Leftists who spew genuine bile and excrement.

    Ed (52bb9a)

  176. But if you want to roll with the MSM you unfortunately do.

    And you’d want to do this, why?

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  177. “…have to admit to doing it.” That should read “…have to admit doing it for fun.”

    GM Roper who wants DRJ back on Patterico's Pontifications (85dcd7)

  178. And you’d want to do this, why?

    To get conservatives elected to public office…

    h2u (81b7bd)

  179. We all know Rush means well when he says he wishes Obama failure.

    We don’t. Or Patterico doesn’t. He insisted all night that he had no idea what Rush meant.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  180. To get conservatives elected to public office…

    Rush isn’t running for anything.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  181. I think Patterico’s approach needs to exist simultaneously with Jeff G’s approach.

    Then why, if we need both, are we excoriating Rush?

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  182. Hold the phone, lee. When did Patterico — or anybody here — endorse Michael Steele’s awful leadership

    You are endorsing the tactic of conceding the premise’s of the left.

    Steele did what Patternico says Rush should have done. He carefully chose his words so as not to offend Hughleys audience. What he accomplished was to make republicans look bad, without winning over one soul from the other side.

    It’s a loser strategy that didn’t work for McCain, and will not work for any Conservative, ever.

    lee (2f1728)

  183. Now it appears to me that you are arguing in a circle with regard to the speech h2u, where before crass was a matter of crudely spoofing Barney Frank.

    The speech could be misinterpreted, you say, because lacking refinement. If lacking refinement, then therefore crass. This, you assert and I deny. It was plenty refined from my point of view. It got across his point perfectly well and at the same time, grabbed the attention he clearly wanted.

    Blunt, I’d concede to that happily. But crass? Nope, sorry. Plain spoken and truthful about his intent? That’s not crass.

    Now barking something untrue, that I would call crass. Accusing Obama of intentions Limbaugh himself doesn’t believe Obama has? Yep, that would be crass. Flaying Obama with ad hominem in the manner of Frum the other day? That too would be crass. But not what Limbaugh actually said, plain as it was.

    No. That was not crass.

    sdferr (8643ba)

  184. Those worried that extreme statements could discredit opposition to Obama should concern themselves less with Limbaugh and more with folks like the birthers.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (a2d4c6)

  185. Again, you are lacking in critical imagination if you have to ask this question.

    The war bonds weren’t sold until after the war started.

    Comment by Steverino — 3/6/2009 @ 1:47 pm

    Defense Bonds were changed to “War Bonds” after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

    We started buying them in 1935 during the depression.

    Yeah, and I’m the one lacking critical imagination.

    Oiram (983921)

  186. We don’t. Or Patterico doesn’t. He insisted all night that he had no idea what Rush meant.
    No he didn’t! He made it very clear that he supported Rush but had problems with his style. Rush had one of those moments when you say something and it doesn’t come out the way you meant it. It happens to all of us. All he needed to do was to back away from that comment, while still making his case. If you are about rebranding the conservative brand, then you would understand why this is a huge error. Right here, many of people like you have come to Rush’s defence, mouthing the same meme of wishing the President failure. But does that represent the feeling of the majority out there who don’t see it your way? This is about the future of this party. Starting off with a tone deaf comment like “I wish Obama fails..” is not a way to win back the hearts of most Americans who are still reeling from the effects of the last 8 years of George Bush! Not wise. You don’t justify one failure by wishing another. We don’t need another failure. Not now. Not ever!

    Emperor7 (0c8c2c)

  187. Well, at least we’re not going to let facts get in the way of a discussion.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  188. Bonds were simply the gold based economy answer to the Bernanke Doctrine (“We have the keys to the printing press and we aren’t afraid to use them.”) that we no longer have to contend with in a credit based economy.

    Sure they could have printed more dollars, but they’d seen how that plays in Weimar.

    Add to that banning the private ownership of gold. There was a reason for it.

    But bonds are just one more way to kick the can down the road, even if its not terribly far down the road.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  189. I instinctively understood what Rush meant the very first time he said he wanted Obama to fail. What the heck is so difficult about that phrase? I want him to fail, too. I don’t want the country to suffer, but I don’t want Marxism to take this country over and transform it into something no more than 10 or 20% truly ever wanted. What Obama is doing now is subverting the wishes of the Founders, the Constitution, and everything that makes this country great, unique, America, and better than all the rest. Obama wants to destroy all that and I want, hope and pray he fails.

    He’s already, in not 2 months, the worst president this country has ever had.

    Peg C. (48175e)

  190. Miserable Failure

    Goose, meet gander.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  191. So Emperor7, if Obamas plan is to change America from a free enterprise, capitalistic society into a socialist “workers paradise”, you hope he succeeds?

    Oh, by the way, anyway you answer that question, I will feel free to re-interpret it to mean you hate America and want Obama to succeed regardless what it does to America, so be sure to frame your reply so I can’t do that, ok?

    Good luck.

    lee (2f1728)

  192. Defense Bonds were changed to “War Bonds” after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

    We started buying them in 1935 during the depression.

    The Defense Bonds, or Series E, weren’t sold until May, 1941. Pretty hard to buy them in 1935.

    Steverino (69d941)

  193. What Obama is doing now is subverting the wishes of the Founders, the Constitution, and everything that makes this country great, unique, America, and better than all the rest. Obama wants to destroy all that and I want, hope and pray he fails.
    What precisely has he done in two months to earn that title of worst President in history. Give me facts and instances. How is he trying to destroy the country? Don’t just throw words around. Back it up!

    Emperor7 (0c8c2c)

  194. Comment by Oiram — 3/6/2009 @ 2:24 pm
    Please cite what “you” were buying in 1935? All I can find when I search for Defense Bonds are two citations noting that the Treasury began issueing a NEW series E bond called Defense Bonds in 1941, and then renamed after 7 Dec 41, as War Bonds.

    “In 1941, in an effort to control inflation, the U.S. Treasury began marketing the new Series E bonds U.S. Savings Bonds as “defense bonds”.

    Comment by h2u — 3/6/2009 @ 1:41 pm

    I too would love to have Goldwater back to lead the Conservative Movement –
    but it would have to be the early Goldwater,
    not the one whose positions softened drastically after his second marriage.

    As Don Rumsfeld said though,
    You go to War with the (leader) you have.

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  195. He made it very clear that he supported Rush but had problems with his style.

    Actually Patterico was quite insistant that he didn’t know what Rush meant.

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14465

    Comment 167
    Comment 204
    Comment 209
    Comment 213
    Comment 216
    Comment 230
    Comment 233

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  196. So Emperor7, if Obamas plan is to change America from a free enterprise, capitalistic society into a socialist “workers paradise”, you hope he succeeds?
    No he is not. He is simply taken necessary steps to get the economy back on track. It means that people should make some sacrifices and do without certain things. If capitalism on it’s own was enough, why are we in the situation we are in now? Yes we need less government and more free enterprise but don’t you think there should be some measures taken to ensure that some of these privileges are not abused? This is precisely why we are where we are. No oversight. No control. If the private sector really wants to be free, why are they coming to the government, seeking bailout? It is clear that the way it was done before has not worked. Change is the only way forward. Unless you have a better plan.

    Emperor7 (0c8c2c)

  197. Necessary steps? hardly.

    Spending money won’t solve this problem.

    Spending money we don’t have, definitely won’t solve this problem.

    The cure for the market is to back off of the credit, individuals and governments, and save as much as possible.

    The current govplan is like trying to get a turtle to stick his head out of his shell by digging around in the hole with a pen knife and will have similar results as well. And he “necessary steps” to solve this would be similar to those one woul use in the analogy, back off and leave it alone.

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  198. DMAC, I have owned a business and I have also worked for business.

    Then pray tell us, what business allows this kind of rank incoherency regarding simple communication skills?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  199. From the Treasury Department site:

    Beginnings of the Savings Bond Program
    United States Savings Bonds are non-marketable Treasury securities which have been sold continuously since 1935. They were introduced by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., as a means of encouraging broad public participation in government financing by making federal bonds available in small denominations specifically tailored to the small investor.

    While Treasury securities had been offered at various times in our history dating back to 1776, they had previously always been marketable securities, subject to market fluctuation. Many small savers, particularly buyers of Liberty Bonds during World War I, experienced significant losses when forced by personal circumstances to sell their bonds in the market prior to maturity.

    The savings bond was designed to be less susceptible to market conditions. It was offered as a savings type of security with a schedule of fixed interest payments and redemption values, redeemable at any time after a short holding period for the purchase price plus accrued interest. A savings bond was issued in registered form (non-negotiable), and could be replaced in the event of loss or destruction.

    Baby Bonds
    Early savings bonds, popularly called “baby bonds”, were issued in four successive series, A, B, C, and D, from 1935 to 1941. Offered in denominations from $25 to $1,000, they were sold at 75 percent of face value and paid 2.9 percent interest when held until their full 10-year maturity. Total sales at issue price of the four series, from March 1935 through April 1941, were approximately $4 billion. The last “baby bonds” matured and ceased earning interest in April 1951.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/history/history_sbbegin.htm

    RTO Trainer (2878d8)

  200. First this hilarity:

    Tired of your accusations of ignorance when the argument doesn’t go your way my friend.

    Then this response:

    The Defense Bonds, or Series E, weren’t sold until May, 1941. Pretty hard to buy them in 1935.

    Moiron gets pwned on a daily basis here, yet continues his exciting career in I work for business.

    I work here is done, no doubt.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  201. You really have to ask?
    I have owned a business (failed) and I have also worked for business (terminated).”

    Nothing could be more self-explanatory.

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  202. # 195. Dmac

    This person could not possibly have owned their own business, unless they paid themselves.

    See # 117

    ML (14488c)

  203. Steverino, don’t press too hard on the topic of his sources or we will get a flood of abuse. Only he knows what a “defense bond” would mean in 1935.

    It also amazes me that you think wealth is created by hard work alone, and not without any help from the society that entrepreneurship benefited from.

    The major help that society provides for entrepreneurship is contract law, which the Obama administration plans to weaken with “cram-down” legislation. National defense is another and that looks to be low on his agenda, as well.

    Tim and Mario do not seem to understand that only the “little people” paid the 90% tax rates.

    Face it, wealth has benefited from socialized public programs far more than poverty has. Hard to believe, I know when you look at your numbers.

    Yes, it is hard to believe unless you are a leftist.

    How in the world was wealth created with 91% tax rates?

    By avoiding them. That will be one of the very few growth industries under Obama. The Europeans simply cheat and we are the only large society in the world with high voluntary compliance with income taxes. That will change. For example, cigarette smuggling is sharply higher now in Michigan due to very high cigarette taxes.

    Read this essay by Theodore Dalrymple on corruption.

    You might learn something.

    Mike K (8df289)

  204. RTO Trainer and lee, someone should have let you know that lovey (Emperor7, formerly known as love2008) is a hardcore liberal Obama supporter who is frequently characterized as a troll. It is especially amusing and ironic (not to mention hypocritical) to see her challenge someone to “Back it up!” when she has never done so herself.

    She’s really not worth discussing things with because it’s never in good faith on her part. Best response to her:

    God
    Forgives
    You

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  205. You might learn something.
    Comment by Mike K — 3/6/2009 @ 3:18 pm

    Yes, and pigs will fly, and unicorns shall walk the paths of our villages.

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  206. He is simply taken necessary steps to get the economy back on track

    Oh bullshit.

    As Morris put it, he has declared war on prosperity.

    As many are starting to comment on, Obama couldn’t have done more to destroy the economy if that was his intention.

    Conservatives know the way to handle a recession is the way Reagan did it, not Carter. When Reagan ran against Carter, I hoped Carter would fail. Was that wrong?

    lee (2f1728)

  207. I feel sad for lovey; at one point just before the election I felt that she was close to understanding how her irrationality and hate was making her look bad, and that she would mend her ways.

    That understanding was wrong, and I feel personally let down. But I chalk it up to experience. Next time, I’ll probably trust again and get burned again, but I still have hope.

    Lovey, here’s some free advice: hate and spite don’t make us more willing to take you seriously.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  208. God
    Forgives
    You

    Comment by Stashiu3 — 3/6/2009 @ 3:20 pm
    And here I was, thinking you have changed somewhat, Stash. Guess I was wrong. But I won’t allow you to change the conversation here. Stick to the topic and stop acting like a troll! (I am not the topic here. Rush Limbaugh is.)

    Emperor7 (0c8c2c)

  209. At least the goats at Achmed’s are getting a rest.

    nk (502275)

  210. Lovey, here’s some free advice: hate and spite don’t make us more willing to take you seriously.

    Comment by steve miller — 3/6/2009 @ 3:26 pm
    Thanks Steve. I will be sure to use that advice. Now can we get back on topic please? Which one sounds more hateful and spiteful? Wishing someone failure or praying for him/her to make the right choices that will result in success? Which is more positive?

    Emperor7 (0c8c2c)

  211. Have you ever seen those old War bonds that look like the old blue chip stamp books?
    You could buy stamps for pennies at a time and people held bond drives at bake sales and church potlucks.
    I still have a few of those laying around in my collectibles box.

    On to the topic though:

    I am an inartful speaker and writer. 99% of the time it does not matter.
    I’ve also been deposed and then had lawyers try to feed me my words later when they knew damn well what I meant… which is why I had someone there to advocate for me aggressively, not go tsk tsk tsk at me.
    I also fought back and refused to allow them to frame my remarks as they pleased and challenged their desire to impute dishonesty into my words.

    There is a time when “yes, no and I do not recall” is the refuge of scoundrels and pussies and there is a time and place to make the other guy resort to whining that a yes or no question was answered non responsively.
    If Michael Steele was my lawyer I’d fire him.
    He is the advocate for the entire party and somehow he let a guy get away with comparing his clientele with nazi’s and then let one of his partys largest voices get mischaracterized without coming out swinging.
    I like Steele, but he’s gonna have to do better than that. If that is how it is gonna go from here, I want him to fail some more ASAP so he can be replaced by someone who can advocate adroitly.
    DL Hughley kicked his ass with one of the worlds oldest rhetorical tricks and Steele had to say “thanks for having me on” before he skulked out.
    This dustup came early enough in the election cycle to not be fatal, but Steele needs Rush’s supporters money even if he has their votes by default.
    Obama raised tons of cash online $10-20 a head… Rush has what… 20 million fans?
    Steele should have passionately defended whites from the nazi slur and defended Rush indirectly by refusing to answer the question and instead stated and restated something like:

    Conservatives want the country to succeed and thrive long term and if achieving that wonderful goal means that the instant gratification Obama offers up in the near term needs to fail then yes we’d like Obama to fail at this misguided approach. We should be shrinking government, not growing it, we should be cutting taxes on small businesses that are the engines of job growth, we should be cutting entitlements that only encourage dependency not growing them and we shouldn’t be spending our grandchildren into bankruptcy, leaving them wondering why Grandpa let them get stuck with the bill for Obama’s failure…

    repeat some variation of that until the guy has the cue hit him to cut to a commercial break.

    SteveG (a87dae)

  212. and stop acting like a troll!

    Sounds kind of like the Christian Bale rant, doesn’t it?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  213. Ooops

    See what I mean… instead of “…bill for obama’s failure” there at the end, it should have read “…bill run up by Obama…”

    I just fired myself

    SteveG (a87dae)

  214. No. That was not crass.

    Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think Rush Limbaugh is crass and I love him for it. He doesn’t speak like a politician or diplomat and the conservative movement needs that. But the conservative movement also needs a Goldwater to exist simultaneously.

    h2u (81b7bd)

  215. Comment by SteveG — 3/6/2009 @ 3:44 pm
    What was the point of picking a black man to lead the party? Was not part of the effort to change the image of the Rep party from what it was/is to something that reflects where America has gotten now. Steele was the Reps card to draw a cross section of minority (who are growing into a majority, BTW). By appearing on that show, don’t you think the Reps were trying to say “Hey, we speak your language too and we understand your concerns”? This i believe was why he had dismiss Rush’s comment the way he did. The Republican party won’t grow by trying to defend Rush’s off comments. It will grow by appealing to those who ordinarily won’t listen to what she has to say. You need Steele to pull that off. Not Rush.

    Emperor7 (0c8c2c)

  216. Lovey, giving me two choices that aren’t part of the original package isn’t honest.

    The issue is not wishing someone failure – it’s wishing someone’s policies failure.

    I’m all for Bambi’s success, but I can’t wish him success if that means destroying America.

    I would be foolish if I said, “Well, Bambi’s off to destroy America, but since he’s Prexy, I must avoid any judgment over his motives or goals; instead, I must hope he succeeds in whatever he does.”

    Some people have gotten it into themselves that somehow Bambi is important. He isn’t; he’s merely the president. What’s vastly more important than him or his success is the people and nation of the U.S.

    It’s a useful synecdoche to conflate Bambi with the U.S. in power & prestige, but it’s no more than that. I can sleep OK if Bambi personally fails. I would feel sorry for him as I would feel sorry for any other of the 6+ billion people inhabiting this planet.

    When I say (and say continually) that I hope he fails, it means this: I hope he fails in his attempts to destroy America and subvert the Constitution. I hope his attempts to focus on Rush fail too as he attempts to distract from his disastrous failures in foreign policy (Iran, Russia) and his catastrophic ineptitude dealing with the financial crisis.

    Go search for “Miserable Failure” on yahoo.com & see who’s name pops up first.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  217. Oh, ok fine h2u.

    So don’t pretend he wasn’t being crass — he was and he knew it.

    So now I don’t have to be presumed to be pretending, that’s good. But Limbaugh’s opinion of himself, you’re going to hang on to that one for awhile, eh?

    sdferr (8643ba)

  218. Wishing someone failure or praying for him/her to make the right choices that will result in success? Which is more positive?

    When someone has already made disastrously wrong choices such as Obama has done, wishing that person failure in enacting those choices is more positive. His success is the country’s failure, and vice versa. That message needs to be emphasized, not obscured by unrealistic hopes that Obama will repudiate basic tenets of his presidency.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (a2d4c6)

  219. False dichotomy. There is a third, or maybe many, possibility (ies). Both may have meant the second with the view that in the long run (beyond the next election) the country might be better off.

    Roy Lofquist (687fa4)

  220. Yeah, we’ll be sure take Obamas advice on how to “grow” the Conservative movement too.

    “Don’t listen to Rush!”

    That Obama is such a giver! (of other peoples money)

    lee (2f1728)

  221. Socialists succeed until you run out of money.

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  222. #217 – which will be soon. At some point, Bambi will have spent the entire GDP on handouts. Then what?

    steve miller (c76b20)

  223. Why, we’ll just print more money, akin to the Weimar Republic. I can just picture it now, hopey and changey peoples with wheelbarrrows full of money to buy one loaf of bread…YES WE CAN!

    Dmac (49b16c)

  224. That would make Juggy our von Hinderburg. I wonder who our Hitler will be.

    nk (502275)

  225. It won’t take a wheelbarrow because we’ll have these magic debit cards.

    steve miller (c76b20)

  226. I just Hope he leaves me some Change!

    AD - RtR/OS (756934)

  227. Mike K,
    I don’t think you know his meaning

    Of course I don’t know his meaning.

    My observation is about how the statement looks to those who are part of different political tribes.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  228. aphrael, is it how it looks, or is it how the different tribes want it to look?

    Barney Frank got up today in the house to claim that Rush Limbaugh & his ilk wanted to see America fail.

    Now, I know politicians lie, and lie continuously. But really, does the other side really think that Rush & his ilk want America to fail? Really?

    steve miller (c76b20)

  229. Well steve, it could certainly be interpreted that way!

    If only Rush had chosen his language more judiciously…

    lee (7afef3)

  230. However, the state chairman was worried about long-term fallout from Steele’s tiff with Rush Limbaugh.

    “A tremendous number of Rush’s listeners are GOP donors, and they’re fragile donors. Will they come back? The worst thing Rush did is speculate that his listeners wouldn’t donate. That was a huge signal [to listeners]. That was damaging to us, and that’s the real carnage from that fight, not Michael Steele’s reputation.

    That was from an RNC member today and that is serious stuff.

    Lovey said above that the Republicans chose Steele because he is black. There is something to that although Ken Blackwell was also interested in the job. I’ve met both and both are personable. Steele was thought to have run a good campaign for the Senate in Maryland and lost in a tough year. Blackwell was not endorsed by the Ohio delegation because it was thought he had not done a good job in his race for Governor. The other choices were not very impressive, especially the guy who belonged to the white-only club.

    The GOP has been interested in reaching out to minorities since 1866. The first black US Senator and all black public officials until the 1940s were Republicans. The first real inroads made by Democrats were after Truman integrated the military and JFK called Martin Luther KIng in jail. Nixon thought about it and was advised that it would be counterproductive, a disastrous decision for the GOP.

    Goldwater voted no on the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the grounds of states rights and the issue of quotas. It still passed only because the Republicans supported it. Hubert Humphrey said in the Senate debate that, if quotas were permitted by the bill, he would eat it page by page. They were and he never ate it. The damage to Republicans has lasted this long. Robert Byrd is the last Senate member of the Ku Klux Klan yet that idiot on CNN thinks the GOP convention was Nazi and Republicans are racist.

    Some day, blacks will realize that the Democrats have done little for them since LBJ and the immigration issue might be that moment. Anyway, the party does need to reach out and make the case for conservative principles. It is frustrating to see the middle class blacks turn to racist ideas like those of Wright but someone once said that revolutions come after people have begun to gain their freedom, not when they are oppressed.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  231. Here is one of Jeff Goldstein’s latest:

    Comment by Jeff G. on 3/6 @ 7:52 pm #

    Here’s what happened: Patterico studiously avoided all my responses. Instead, he engaged others here on other points, and now he’s claiming that all those people he engaged won’t cut him slack on points that, to a large extent, don’t touch on the ones that I wanted to discuss.

    He has a talking point. He has been “misrepresented.” What I want to know is how? Where did I say that it’s never proper to pull your punches? Where did I say that in-your-face invective is the only way to get things done?

    In your effort to decry how “misrepresented” you’ve been, Patrick, you’ve been running around — even before this post — caricaturing me. In your little private “public” tweets.

    Thing is, I’m not crying about being misrepresented, because I will calmly restate my position when necessary. You, however, will only restate that you’ve been misrepresented.

    See the difference?

    And frankly, maybe I missed it in the 700+ posts yours and Jeff’s threads have generated, but it appears you do not want to engage Jeff’s argument. Jeff’s argument is not conceeding to the left’s rules on engagement (in terms of rhetoric and language). I generally agree with that.

    Your (Pat’s) argument (going back to CPAC which started all of this) is Coulter and arguments about Obama being not a citizen are a waste of time and hurt the conservative movement and the GOP. I am not sure every lame argument (and yes arguing Obama is not a citizen is lame at this point) hurts the GOP and Conservative movement, but it arguably takes away from more substantive criticisms. I agree to that extent. I also dislike Coulter who I believe is only out for Coulter and not conservatism. Rush on the other hand is a true believer.

    Is it possible Goldstein and Patterico could do blogging heads or some other form of blogging duel to settle this (or at least clarify it)?

    Joe (17aeff)

  232. He says he wishes the war could fail without loss of life, but that would require magic, and there’s no such thing as magic. One could read those lines and conclude that, even knowing more soldiers would die, he still wanted the war to fail.

    How could anyone reasonably read it any other way? It wouldn’t have required magic for Bush to have “failed” to muster the votes needed in Congress to authorize the AUMF, nor even for him to have “failed” to muster the political will to invade once he had that authorization. Neither of those “failures” would have entailed the loss of life among U.S. soldiers. The only kind of “failure” that would have required magic to avert loss of life would have been the reading under which Bush succeeded in getting the war enacted, but then the war itself failed.

    Besides, if Bush had failed to enact the war, no one would have described that as the war failing. They would have described it as Bush failing.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  233. I think that we have two different writing styles. Both not necessarily easy to understand.

    Patterico writes crisply and laconically and his few words may contain several meanings, whether it is his intention or not. It is up to the reader to choose the connotation he prefers.

    Jeff uses a lot of long words. So that by the time you have reached the end of a post — hell, the end of a word sometimes — you have forgotten the first part and as a consequence you cannot understand any part.

    nk (502275)

  234. I vote for “Less on Limbaugh”.

    Molon Labe (640aad)

  235. Rachel Maddow defines how conservatives and Republicans should speak.

    If you are agreeing with Rachel Maddow, you might be a Democrat.

    Joe (17aeff)

  236. Is it possible Goldstein and Patterico could do blogging heads or some other form of blogging duel to settle this (or at least clarify it)?

    Comment by Joe

    What was the question, again ? Sheesh !

    Mike K (2cf494)

  237. I just wish both of our gladiators would take a deep breath and stop to consider how harmful this feud could become — and how amusing it is for the Obamites.

    They and their followers need to put their energies into more productive endeavors than verbally hacking each other to bits.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  238. Bradley – Joe appears to enjoy this.

    JD (771d22)

  239. Necessary steps? hardly.

    Spending money won’t solve this problem.

    Spending money we don’t have, definitely won’t solve this problem.

    The cure for the market is to back off of the credit, individuals and governments, and save as much as possible.

    Yeah, the Hoover solution! Awesome, RTO. Now, you can get a Neo-Hoover merit badge to go with the Neo-con merit badge you’ve been wearing all these years!

    Go read some Keynes and get back to us….that is when you’re done defending two such worthy souls as that one crazy dude and the disgusting Limbaugh.

    I certainly hope this keeps up into next year. After Limbaugh got Claire McCaskill elected, I wasn’t sure he could any more valuable to my side. He’s topped himself with this bon mot

    timb (8f04c0)

  240. JD,
    Yes, I don’t know why Joe would like the conflict.

    I suspect any Obamites lurking here or at Protein Wisdom are passing the popcorn. It’s the ideal setting for them: “Watch the stupid conservatives tear each other to pieces!”

    Myself, I feel nauseated.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  241. I have supported Jeff Goldstein for years, and even contributed money to him during his battles with that crazy Frisch woman.

    But this is not merely stupid, but counterproductive. Mr. Goldstein is acting little different from our “tough guy” trolls. And I think that this is all about the man generating publicity in the rightosphere for his “Outlaws” group.

    “Outlaws”? Really?

    Speaking of “tough guys.”

    And, as Bradley correctly points out: all of this makes the DNC smile and laugh.

    Me, I remember Reagan’s Eleventh Commandant.

    Also, the wild success of the “McCain is as bad as Obama” people, hand in hand with the “Let’s Teach the RNC a Lesson By Voting For Perot.”

    How’d that work out for conservatism, again? Twice?

    But that isn’t the issue here. It’s about creating a huge fight for personal reasons (this new group).

    Conservatives, I share many of your ideas. But go watch “Dr. Strangelove” again.

    Purity of essence goes some might odd places. It was true for General Jack D. Ripper, and it is also true for gearing up to take the government back from statists with socialist tendencies.

    That needs to be Job One.

    Battling with allies over “purity” works out so well…and makes Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann and Chris Mathews just…well, jump…for joy.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  242. Lighen up then.

    And knock it off with your sniveling about DRJ and respect her decision. And if you don’t like this site without DRJ you know what you don’t have to click on.

    nk (502275)

  243. If you wanted the context, you had to go read and/or listen what he had to say. Not everybody did.

    The horror!

    But it looks like several million people did just that. The exposure he and his ideas have gotten over this would cost many millions of dollars were he to try and buy it.

    I’m sure he’s thanking Barry, Rahm, Carville, Begala, Stephanopoulos, et al for the Stimulus!

    The One has severely misplayed this, and they picked a stupid target to begin with. This is a rhetorical win for Limbaugh, and the administration looks petty and stupid for getting into the ring with him, especially while our little economy is swirling the drain.

    He says he wants Obama to fail because he thinks Obama’s policies will be bad for the country. But give me a quote that clearly says which of the above interpretations is right.

    Why are you looking for a quote that disclaims something he didn’t say? Why should he bother providing it? It’s not like people are looking for nuance, right?

    Pablo (99243e)

  244. Hey, speaking of lightening up, nk. Bradley Fikes has watched genuinely excellent people chased from blogs by trolls.

    We all don’t have to agree. But I thought we had a common goal. And amusing trolls here and making Carville grin that mutant grin of his are not on either of our agendas.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  245. Well said, Eric, especially the 11th Commandment part.

    There’s too much poorly channeled anger out there, and an almost Marxist pride in attacking deviationists.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., who wants DRJ back! (0ea407)

  246. And I think that this is all about the man generating publicity in the rightosphere for his “Outlaws” group.

    “Outlaws”? Really?

    Speaking of “tough guys.”

    Yup, a Jewish stay at home dad with a degree in English. In Colorado. How much more outlaw than that can you get? He does practice some form of martial *art* that involves grappling. I think that we should leave Jeff and his Log Cabin Republicans to their own devices if it comes down to between him and Patterico.

    nk (502275)

  247. Hey, nk, #242 made me laugh. I needed that.

    Okay, maybe it wasn’t nice. But it was clever and funny. All you needed to do is bring up an armadillo filing a harassment order!

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  248. And please click on my “lighten up” link in my comment #238. Gay or not, it’s the best rendition of “Words” I have heard.

    nk (502275)

  249. You are one of a kind, nk. Always enjoy seeing your posts.

    What about gay armadillos?

    Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  250. I don’t know why Joe would like the conflict.

    I actually don’t want the conflict between Patterico and Goldstein. I have had my disagreements with Goldstein. While I would love to see him in a senitive diplopatic post, a future at the UN or Foggy Bottom does not seem likely.

    I am frankly confused by Pat’s responses to Goldstein. Agree or disagree, Goldstein makes a point and Patterico misses it or intentionally ignores it. I am assuming the later, he is too smart for the former.

    I get Pat’s argument about CPAC. I agree with him on some of it. I agree stupid arguments about Obama’s nationality at this point are a waste of time. I do not get his argument about Rush. The MSM is disingenous and we need to speak in unison to call them on it. When one is getting closer and closer in spirit to Rachel Maddow’s position, that is probably a good time to question what direction you are going.

    Joe (17aeff)

  251. And I have to admit, I am cautious—no offense intended—about clicking links. Bradley will tell you why. We used to know someone who would post links that were definitely NSFW.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  252. Ok, to reciprocate good will, I will, sometime in the next three or four days, email Patterico to ask him to email DRJ and ask her whether she wants commenters here to continue sniveling for her to come back in their sigh-ins(sic).

    nk (502275)

  253. I agree with Patterico on the principle that those opposing Obama should not made wild statements that can be easily caricatured. However, what Limbaugh said was not wild at all. It was logical and common-sensical. You should want Obama to fail if his goal is to enact horrible policies. That’s pretty easy to explain.

    Ironically, some of Limbaugh’s more vociferous defenders have made him look positively moderate. They do so by saying stuff like Obama is a communist, a crypto-Muslim or intends to destroy America. (Instead of just saying Obama follows policies that will be ruinous for America, doesn’t have the experience needed for his pay grade, is possessed of less than stellar ethics, and has deluded himself and his acolytes into thinking he’s The Messiah.)

    Those vociferous Limbaugh defenders are helping Limbaugh, but not in the way they intended!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  254. You know, nk, I thought (and think) the world of DRJ. I understand why she chooses not to post here anymore. I don’t add a “please come back” sign to my own nickname, for two reasons: (1) she knows how much she is respected and missed by far more important people than yours truly, and (2) she is doing what she thinks best.

    I would only add that the nasty troll problem is not helping. And I have no solution for it. I’m angry at trolls for creating an environment where DRJ chooses not to post. It’s not their blog, but they seem delighted to stink up the joint.

    Times like today show why people like DRJ are important. She had a skill in bringing people together in reason and good will.

    But most people respect her opinion on this. And the ones who have nicknames associated with asking DRJ to come back are expressing their frustration with what happened.

    It seems like it bugs you, and I guess I get that. But she was pretty darned special.

    And trolls suck all the way down to the deepest sedimentary strata.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  255. nk,
    I don’t want Patterico to nag DRJ. That tagline was posted by chance. It was installed on a new computer several days ago. I go from computer to computer, and have to re-enter my tagline each time. My laptop, I think, just has plain ol’ Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. I was thinking of purging it from this computer, but neglected to.

    Keeping taglines in order when you post on four or five computers can be challenging.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  256. Well frankly Bradley based on his associations, his statements and current and future policies, tell me how some of the more extreme claims can’t be true. No I don’t truck with the citizenship hawkers, but
    the rest of it; Ayer, Wright, the New Party, ties to the FARC, Hamas, et al, naivete goes so far, Alinsky can only misunderstood up to a point.

    narciso (57971e)

  257. Why would you come to Jeff’s site and yet never respond to anything he said? Most people consider that shit kinda rude BTW.

    Mr. Pink (0ee368)

  258. narciso,
    Let’s take Wright, for example. One way to handle Obama’s strange relationship with this hateful preacher is to point out that Wright has praised the terrorist group Hamas, claimed the U.S. government invented AIDS for genocide against black people and so on. Obama says he never heard Wright speak of those horrible things. Guess he must have fallen asleep during all those sermons and never read the church bulletin. And of course, nobody during those 20 years ever bothered to tell Obama. Not even Michelle.

    IOW, point out the provable facts about Obama’s friends, and his less-than-convincing explanations, preferably with a touch of humor. That way, you draw attention to Obama’s behavior without making claims that can’t be proven. Put the onus on Obama’s supporters to come up with an explanation that isn’t laughable.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  259. “Before it’s all over, it’ll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care bill,” Limbaugh said.

    Brian Wolff, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, called the remark outrageous and reprehensible.

    Outrageous and reprehensible. How dare he give conservatives a bad name with such inflammatory comments?!?

    Pablo (99243e)

  260. timb, your #235 shows only your ignorance of the true history of the great depression.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  261. Pablo – That is just crass, outrageous and irresponsible of Limbaugh to say. I wonder if anyone has reminded the Democrats yet that they indicated the bill would be named after Kennedy in January? Freaking boneheads.

    I like Limbaugh riling up the libs but I think Patterico got a little wobbly on this one. Jeff’s initial take on Patterico’s position, in his opening paragraph, that is was “conceding linguistic ground to the left” I don’t think was a fair reading of Patrick’s position in spite of Jeff’s later insistence. As a result, he talks past Patrick and Patrick talks past Jeff. It’s an ugly thread over there, as was the good man thread, which needed an interpreter as well.

    Patterico tends not to like the more in your face voices on the right, whether it’s Coulter or Limbaugh and usually spares his venom for dishonest commenters or dishonest ideological opponents. Jeff likes to throw down anytime with anybody and I enjoy reading them both. I don’t enjoy the fights between them.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  262. Politics Home » US Senate

    Senate Lion Ted Kennedy Roars Once More for National Health Care
    As Sen. Ted Kennedy enters the twilight of his career battling brain cancer, he will make what could turn out to be his final push to get healthcare legislation across the finish line.
    By Stephen Clark

    FOXNews.com

    Tuesday, January 13, 2009

    For more than four decades, Ted Kennedy has built a reputation as a “lion of the Senate” with all of his legislative accomplishments. But there’s one noteworthy feather missing from his legislative cap: national health care.

    In the twilight of his career and battling brain cancer, the Massachusetts Democrat now is making what could turn out to be his final push to get health care legislation across the finish line.

    “He obviously sees this as the crowning achievement of his career,” said Tom Mann, a congressional scholar at Brookings Institution. “But there’s a lot of uncertainty as to whether anything substantial will pass this year.”

    In the coming months, Kennedy’s committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is expected to help craft legislation to expand health insurance coverage. Joining Kennedy in his effort will be former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, whom President-elect Barack Obama nominated to be secretary of health and human services.

    A spokeswoman for one of the architects of a national health care bill said that any legislation that emerges would be named after Kennedy.

    “He wouldn’t name it for himself, but the majority of the body working on the legislation would say he’s devoted his life to it,” said Jude McCartin, a spokeswoman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., a member of Kennedy’s committee. “Now that we’re on the verge of doing something major, the naming of the legislation should reflect his longstanding involvement,”

    But it is unclear if legislation can get passed this year, given the attention lawmakers must pay to the financial crisis.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  263. I hope Rush makes a comeback.

    XYZ was one of my favorite albums

    Comment by Oiram — 3/6/2009 @ 8:44 am /blockquote>

    just in case no one pointed it out. there was no Rush album named “XYZ”. there was an instrumental on Moving Pictures named “YYZ”.

    you are one sorry troll. cant get anything right!

    chas (53215d)

  264. Patterico, in your comparison, you make the assumption that A=B and argue based on that premise. However, losing a war to terrorists does not equal policy failures of a President.

    Barney15e (1bd1e2)

  265. What was that?!

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  266. A + B == C

    Don’t worry about parameters or proofs.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  267. I would like to cast a vote for the 2nd interpretation of Rush’s remark: “Rush opposes President Obama’s policies, and feels that they are likely to lead to more suffering. So, even if the policies do get enacted, Rush still wants them to fail. This is not because Rush wants more suffering for the American people. But he feels that, in the long run, the quick and dramatic failure of the policies might lead to Rush’s own proposed policies being adopted: namely, spending less and employing the free market. In the long run, this would be best for America.”

    Ever since ’64 we have seen The Democrat Party condition the “sheeple” to expect the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent GOVERNMENT to take care of their every need. Including thinking…

    I hope Obama gets every piece of Communist legislation he asks for. When those policies fail, as they inevitably must, then maybe the American people will see how ideologically and morally bankrupt the Democrats are. I think that by 2012, the DOW will be below 1000. I hope that by 2012, the people will be so fed up with Obama and the democrats that they couldn’t get elected Dog Catcher. I’d like to hope that we’d smarten up sooner, but I fear we need a swift kick to wake us up

    J Rutter (6e3624)

  268. Patterico, in your comparison, you make the assumption that A=B and argue based on that premise. However, losing a war to terrorists does not equal policy failures of a President.

    You understand my argument so well, and devastate it so simply.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  269. nk,

    I clicked that link and watched the video for about a minute.

    I’ll never get that minute back.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  270. The funniest stuff I heard today was Hillary giving a gift to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. The intent was a joke and a big dig at the Bush administration, but the joke was only on Hillary and the US state department.

    The gift was a red button that was to read “reset” (peregruzka) in Russian. Hillary explained that they tried really hard to get the word correct and asked if they did.

    The Prime Minister replied, you got it wrong! Instead of the word “reset”, Sergei Lavrov explained the word on the button meant “overcharge”!

    Nothing could be truer and the ironicalness is to ironic.

    Via Hot Air.

    ML (14488c)

  271. King Ralph and his court.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  272. Since Joe likes to republish Jeff’s comments here, I’ll republish part of one of his comments:

    You may sell that on your site, or behind my back on Twitter, but sadly for you, people here actually read me.

    When I pointed out that posting something on the fucking Internet is hardly “behind his back” he wrote:

    In your effort to decry how “misrepresented” you’ve been, Patrick, you’ve been running around — even before this post — caricaturing me. In your little private “public” tweets.

    There is nothing private about Twitter. It’s on the Internet. No password required. No logon required to read it.

    It’s also hilarious that he claims I’m “running around caricaturing” him as if that came out of a vacuum. I think the commenters here remember very well being told by Jeff — in a totally unprovoked post — that they were like snooty snobs wearing top hats and smoking jackets. We all had a good laugh at that, mostly because it was so off-base.

    Soon after, Andy Levy (in a public message left on Twitter) wrote:

    Tried to read Rush’s speech. Stopped when he called liberals “deranged.” It’s stupid when Garofalo does it, it’s stupid when Rush does it.

    In response to that, I wrote Andy, in a public message anyone could read:

    Don’t tell Jeff Goldstein, or he’ll claim you wear a top hat and a smoking jacket. Calling liberals deranged is AUTHENTIC & GUTSY.

    Click the link. It works!

    I don’t see how that’s talking behind Jeff Goldstein’s back any more than him musing at his blog about my commenters was behind my back.

    And the phrase

    little private “public” tweets

    is bullshit. The word private is bullshit. There’s nothing private about it. The quotes around public are bullshit. No need for quotes; it’s public.

    What’s more, Goldstein should have gotten an e-mail about my Twitter page, because I signed up to follow his Twitter page — and signing up causes an e-mail to be automatically generated to him. So he tries to make me sound like a sneak saying things behind his back when it’s all out in the open.

    Why is he lying about me? Why is he caricaturing me as something I’m not? I wondered until today. Now I think I know. April 1 is coming and the Pajamas money — from Pajamas, the organization that so wronged him by paying him thousands when they were losing money — is drying up.

    So you take a conservative, caricature him, rally the troops against him, and set up a foundation.

    A foundation. Based on opposition to the awful danger to conservatism posed by well-respected bastion of the conservative movement (and mealy-mouthed wimp) Patterico. We must fight this scourge, friends! Who’s in?! Donations welcome.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  273. Aaaaaaand now he’s suggesting I’m an anti-Semite.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  274. Patterico, I love you like a brother. Ok, as much as I could love a lawyer brother. But I’ve gotta tell you, you’re milking this thing more than Rush is at this stage.

    Subotai (661563)

  275. Wait, now he’s suggesting you’re an anti-Semite? Where?

    Not Rhetorical (35e994)

  276. Oh, I’m loving this. I love having people falsely caricature me as someone who doesn’t care about telling the truth; falsely portraying me as a sneak who says mean things behind their back; and now, falsely portraying me as an anti-Semite. Yeah, I’m milkin’ this, baby! I’ve never HAD so much fun!

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  277. Here’s the quote:

    Wow.

    I guess Pat’s done hit rock bottom.

    No matter. It’s not like a lot of the lefty blogs haven’t accused me of being a money-grubbing Jew opportunist with no real ideological core. Hearing it come from a true conservative like Mr Frey makes me aware that I best know my place.

    WE WILL HAVE DECORUM!

    Emphasis mine.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  278. Ironically, some of Limbaugh’s more vociferous defenders have made him look positively moderate. They do so by saying stuff like Obama is a communist, a crypto-Muslim or intends to destroy America.

    Those vociferous and immoderate defenders of Limbaugh don’t sound any different than the average Democrat for the past several years.

    Subotai (661563)

  279. OK, I see now what you’re talking about. It’s pretty clear he’s baiting you, Patterico. You should drop it. He’s not playing fair, and what might have been fun at one point isn’t likely to be anymore.

    Not Rhetorical (35e994)

  280. You’re right.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  281. By “milking it” I was refering to your series of posts. I’ve not been following the food fight with JG, and I don’t intend to. As a well wisher, I suggest you both step away from the keyboards. Good night.

    Subotai (661563)

  282. Sad. You should drop it, I think, Patterico, much as it pains me to say so. (I generally love stuff like this; it’s invigorating.) He seems a little unhinged, maybe, and that can be dangerous. He’s clearly not playing by the same rules you are — you know, him being an OUTLAW and all.

    Not Rhetorical (35e994)

  283. I do think you might want to trade in “Patterico” for “Mr. Nuance Nicey Nicey,” though. Has a nice ring to it.

    Not Rhetorical (35e994)

  284. It appears I have been banned. So you get your wish, Not Rhetorical. Probably for the best.

    Seems that he didn’t like what I was saying. Made him look bad. He wants to keep demonizing me, and that’s hard to do if I fight back.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  285. And he deleted it all.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  286. I don’t know if you were banned, Patrick — look again. He deleted the whole thread, right after he told you and me to fuck off. He also deleted that section of his comments on the other post. At least for the moment.

    Not Rhetorical (35e994)

  287. Sorry, cross-post. Anyway, I e-mailed you too — same thing, basically.

    Not Rhetorical (35e994)

  288. Jeez, Patterico. It also looks like the whole post was deleted.

    And to think I gave that guy money in the past. Well, I’m still not sorry about that; he was dealing with a lunatic stalker.

    But this whole business is unproductive, to say the least.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  289. He’s spent the past two days pushing a caricature of me and my positions. I’ve spent two days fighting it and getting nowhere.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  290. Uh, you were “banned”? Really?

    No, not the case. Actually, I took down the post and comments and sent you an email about letting cooler heads prevail. I didn’t prevent you from making any further postings, and I’ve merely changed the status of the eruption to “unpublished.”

    Guess that, like trying to engage you in an actual debate, was a futile gesture.

    By the way — love the gay innuendo for nk and Mr Blair upthread. Outlaw grapplers like me, you know we must just really love to guzzle the cock.

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  291. It appears I have been banned. So you get your wish, Not Rhetorical. Probably for the best.

    Seems that he didn’t like what I was saying. Made him look bad. He wants to keep demonizing me, and that’s hard to do if I fight back.

    Actually, I thought you did that all by yourself. If you want the post back up, just say the word. As I said, I was trying for de-escalation.

    Should’ve figured you’d grab onto anything shaped like a life vest at this point.

    By the way, did a little Muay Thai practice today — mostly low kicks and striking.

    Then, right afterward? Sucked a cock. Because that’s what people who take martial arts that involves submission grappling do!

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  292. Seemed like I was banned. Not sure how I was supposed to know I wasn’t. I repeatedly tried to post a comment and couldn’t. Now I know what happened.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  293. Wow, lookit! I’d even put a note in the comments where the original barrage appeared intimating that I was hoping for a de-escalation! Back when I took it all down.

    – You know, to de-escalate things!

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  294. Off to suck a cock now.

    If it’s a good night, maybe I can even find some sucker to pay me for it!

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  295. Wow, lookit! I’d even put a note in the comments where the original barrage appeared intimating that I was hoping for a de-escalation!

    Yup. Check the time. It’s the same minute I said I thought I’d been banned. I didn’t know what was going on. Seemed like I’d been banned. Now I know what happened. Didn’t then. Nor was there any way for me to know.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  296. I sent the email and put up the comment. As part of the de-escalation thing I mentioned.

    What, were you posting here simultaneously? Like a kinda “live blog” thingie? Trying to rally a li’l support, were you?

    Maybe Eric’s still around. Think he wants me to guzzle his junk?

    Enough of this. Grown men acting this way. It is to blush.

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  297. Question, Eric and nk. And don’t worry, it’s on point:

    Is a bit of gay bashing okay provided it’s done in a way that isn’t particularly provocative?

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  298. I kid. Relax. Everyone take a deep breath.

    Well, everyone except me. It’s hard to take a deep breath with an eight-inch joint crammed down your maw.

    Heh.

    See what I did there?

    Jeff G (4748cc)

  299. I sent the email and put up the comment. As part of the de-escalation thing I mentioned.

    What, were you posting here simultaneously? Like a kinda “live blog” thingie? Trying to rally a li’l support, were you?

    I was posting on my blog. I’m allowed to do that. And that’s what I was doing. My point, and I know you understand this, is that I thought I was banned and it was not unreasonable to think at the time.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  300. No, I don’t think there’s any good to be served by putting it back up. De-escalation is good. Leave it down.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  301. I think Rush is out for Rush. The latest poll numbers on Obama do not give any indication that this thing is hurting him even a little. And the very idea that Rush would refer to someone like Allah as an oddball for not falling in line some adoring puppy is outrageous.

    I did not vote for Obama, but a lot of people like Malkin and even Rush were not exactly working hard to beat him. They spent more time and energy going after McCain than they did supporting him. And like it or not he was the only thing standing between us and President Obama.

    Terrye (c6c111)

  302. Come to think of it, not so long ago Jeff over at PW was saying he was going to sit this election out. He could not bring himself to vote for anyone. Of course that in and of itself could be seen as a sort of tacit support for Obama. I mean, if you just want to be honest about it all. After all, every conservative that stayed home in a snit was like a vote for Obama.

    Now maybe at the last minute some of these guys relented and voted for McCain anyway, but they sure as hell were not all that worried about Obama failing back when it mattered the most that he fail.

    Terrye (c6c111)

  303. Pablo – That is just crass, outrageous and irresponsible of Limbaugh to say.

    No it isn’t, daley. And it most certainly isn’t reprehensible. Why in the world would you say such a thing about a comment that, as you note, happens to be entirely correct?

    Pablo (99243e)

  304. This discussion has descended into the ridiculous. Enough already. Unless you can prove which one really is Hitler.

    Pablo (99243e)

  305. I’m sorry, Patterico and Bradley. I played that song for my daughter and she did not like it either. I wonder what’s been happening to my musical taste. Maybe it’s because I haven’t had a drink of whiskey since Halloween but have been drinking Pinot Noir from Costco instead.

    Jeff, I don’t think that you’re gay. I don’t think that your commenters are gay, either. I do think that you can find offense in a “Good morning, Mr. Goldstein”. My comments were mostly in support of Patterico, true, but I was also trying to lighten up the tone. I know that you and Patterico were friends and I think that this seeming bitterness between the two of you is … ok, I’m shutting up.

    nk (502275)

  306. Rush thinks Obama and the Democrats are taking America on a warp speed drive on the highway to hell and it needs to be stopped now.
    I agree.
    I wouldn’t phrase it like he does and over the course of a three hour show he’s sure to say something the Democrats will pounce on (very hypocritcally as the clip daleyrocks passed along… and enabled by the AP who obviously can’t be bothered to fact check the Democrats).

    The key JeffG seems to be saying is to defend the right to say we are on the highway to hell, expose the hypocrisy and call, hypocrisy, lies and fabrications what they are.
    We need to defend those who articulate the big picture without letting the media and the Democrats get away with killing us on the small story… like the one daleyrocks noted, or the convenient loss of party symbol when reporting scandal.

    I was put off the other day by criticism of the Senator who was discussing the possibility of Obama replacing Supreme court justice Ginsberg.
    She’s older, has cancer, and is the most likely justice to be replaced in the near term because of that combination.
    We don’t have to get caught up in the endless small story of inartful remarks and repudiating them.

    Patrick has done this with the LA Times… sometimes over righteous stuff, and other times battled over the lamest tiny crap. Being drawn into battles over tiny bullshit dilutes the righteous voice and takes away from the larger story which is the gross dishonesty the LA Times perpetrates.

    Patrick… If you had a three hour show and bumbled through a segment and left a sentence hanging out there that was pounced upon by your enemies, we’d defend you using the body of your work, your overall intent and not focus on the inartful sentence. Because we are your friends and allies.
    I am your ally, and I am JeffG’s ally, and I am Rush’s ally in the fight against the highway to hell Obama is leading us down.To right the ship of conservatism we need to cement our alliances concentrate on our commmon interests in the big story… and ignore the small story.
    The big stories are runaway spending, socialization led by tax cheats and liars like Frank and Dodd, and ginormous government led by pelosi, and bungling foreign policy led by only God knows who.

    We should cause the failures of their ideology by exposing their lies and by refusing to let the media and Democrats bog us down with the little stuff like arguments over what failure means.

    I think Rush should play “Highway to Hell” every time Pelosi draws up another spending spree and then sends Obama out to shill for like a traveling salesman.
    The events of the last 6 weeks are going to take years to undo, and we need to put the brakes on this failure now and get some balance back in 2010.
    Rudderless, fratricidal, micromanagement of one another isn’t going to cut it.

    SteveG (a87dae)

  307. Dear Patterico: i know it is all tough and outlaw to post the vulgar stuff above, but would you consider deleting those charming posts above? You know, the ones discussing de-escalation while sounding like one of Ehrenstein’s posts?

    PW has lots of posts like that. That’s fine. But I don’t post there. Yeah, I guess that doesn’t make me all tough and outlaw-y. Purity of essence and all.. Still, when I want to hear tough guy cant with attempts at taunting, I have a whole freshman class to which I can listen.

    De-escalation IS good. Feel free to remove anything at all I have posted, if that helps. This is your house, and your guests—me too—should be mindful of that. Most folks posting here are.

    Eric Blair (70c2ba)

  308. “Nobody disses my favorite blogger! Nobody! THIS MEANS WAR!!”

    Not really. It’s just fun to say that.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/6/2009 @ 7:21 am

    I’m a little late getting over here to read these excellent post, BUT, c’mon Patrick??? I’ve been reading PP’s for the better part of four years now. You’ve made it an honored tradition in your attempt to correct the LA Times’ fabrications and front page fairy tales. WHAT WOULD BE MORE FUN THAN TAKING ON RUSH FOR INSULTING ALLAHPUNDIT? On second thought, maybe this would be more distracting to Obama’s assault on capitalism than defending Allah’s “sometimes” ODDBALL “philosophies”.

    Rov

    Rovin (a5d8b7)

  309. He says he wishes the war could fail without loss of life, but that would require magic, and there’s no such thing as magic. One could read those lines and conclude that, even knowing more soldiers would die, he still wanted the war to fail. This bothered me the first time I read it, and I can guarantee you that it bothered plenty of conservatives.

    You made Lee Stranahan’s case in good faith, but his case is actually better than as you made it.
    If you were rooting for the war to fail in, say, 2004, 2005, etc., soldiers were already losing their lives with no realistic prospect of that ending anytime soon (as they still are). It’s not at all hard to imagine withdrawal scenarios that involved less soldiers ultimately dying than the extra 2000 or so that died in the next few years.
    So people that hoped the Iraq war would fail didn’t have to hope for actual tactical insurgent victories. They just hoped that the ones that had already happened would be considered enough evidence that this should be ended.

    On a slightly different topic – now here’s an argument I doubt any conservative will ever respect – if your government is engaged in completely unethical military aggression currently involved in killing large numbers of innocents, if you don’t want those aggressions to fail, then you are complicit in their success. Avoid using the Iraq War as an example – if you’re a Serbian watching the Serbian Army cleanse Kosovo, either you root for your own soldiers to fail, even if some of them get killed, or else you’re rooting for war crimes.

    I freely admit that in such a hypothetical circumstance, I’d root for whatever outcome seemed to involve the least number of total deaths on both sides, regardless of whether that meant more of my own side’s deaths.

    It’s wrong to value in-group lives more than out-group lives; a basic flaw of the world system.

    glasnost (395b7f)

  310. wha…?

    I’m sorry – I’m ignorant & don’t understand the diff between in-group and out-group. Can you explain, please?

    steve miller (c76b20)

  311. I’m mostly have to agree with Pat. At least’s, Pat’s argument is more realistic and the other team more wacky. This isn’t rocket science, people. Just look at Limbaugh’s poll numbers. It’s pretty logical to assume that similar poll numbers will apply to anyone who emulates his style, unless you think he’s losing 20 points for being a fat, divorced ex-drug addict, which is an interesting empirical question.

    As for not allowing the left to “frame the terms of the debate” – good luck with that. You can’t and don’t completely control how your message is framed. You never have, and you never will. George Bush had the largest collection of flunkies ever assembled, willing to perjure themselves like crazy to try and preserve his framing, and it washed away like the tide.

    I have to admit, though, Limbaugh plays some kind of useful role (not for the country as a whole, of course, which he’s doing his best to either intentionally or unintentionally destroy, along with the rest of you, but for his movement) I mean, this whole argument is basically an echo of six years of republican concern-trolling about the left blogopshere, and Kos was absolutely good for the liberal movement.

    Frankly, shouting a bunch of wild-eyed c*ap repeatedly and refusing to acknowledge any information or argument to the contrary is a good way to build a decent horde of unquestioning zealots, and a horde of unquestioning zealots are a useful tool in a political contest.

    Having said that, what definitely is not good for the conservative movement is Rush’s attempt to excommunicate people who disagree with him. It would be one thing if you were sitting on a winning ticket, but – again, read the polls – your core positions are unpopular and Rush is suffocating the attempt to adjust them.

    The base wants you all to stay diehards, hostile to any conservative who doesn’t fit on the cookie cutter, and mostly, so do I. That way you can lose the next seven consecutive elections.

    And, see, the problem starts with the right blogsophere – although possibly not with you per se, Pat. If you are such a deluded or dishonest analyst as to believe that Barack Obama’s actions threaten to “destroy our country” in some sort of literal manner, and you teach your commenters that, than well of course they will reject anyone working in half-measures. If you want a base open to the kind of intellectually open-minded style that voters actually respect and would vote for, then you have to start taking that approach to your blogging.

    glasnost (395b7f)

  312. Well, thanks for clearing that up. $3T in spending, $500-700B deficits as far as the eye can see — that’s just dandy candy & won’t wreck the country.

    Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

    steve miller (c76b20)

  313. “If you were rooting for the war to fail in, say, 2004, 2005, etc., soldiers were already losing their lives with no realistic prospect of that ending anytime soon (as they still are). It’s not at all hard to imagine withdrawal scenarios that involved less soldiers ultimately dying than the extra 2000 or so that died in the next few years.

    So people that hoped the Iraq war would fail didn’t have to hope for actual tactical insurgent victories. They just hoped that the ones that had already happened would be considered enough evidence that this should be ended.”

    glasnost,

    I’m guessing you’re in your thirtys and have done little studying of U.S history on how previous wars have been prosecuted. With the exception of Viet Nam, this nation has never entered into ANY conflict with the intention of failing or “tactically retreating” for the purpose of appeasing public sentiment on whether we should be in the war or not. I wish you could have talked to some of the warriors that landed, (and perished) at Guadalcanal or Iwo Jima, (one single battle cost the United States 4,590 lives and wounded 24,096), and asked them if they gave a rats @ss if you had “evidence” the campaign should have ended.

    While I’m sure there’s a generation of folks like yourself who are sincere in your convictions of whether liberating 30 million Iraqis from a tyranical rein, “was worth the sacrifice”, but when put in the perspective of what others sacrificed to make this world a safer place, Iraq may have had half the casualties if it wasn’t for the “Bush-haters” and anti-war liberal crybabies that did their best to promote the failure*, (* The condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends). I can only hope that history will not be so kind to those who promoted our failures.

    Rovin (a5d8b7)

  314. It has been noted that Rush has low polling numbers, and that this controversy hasn’t improved them any, or that they might have fallen due to the notoriety; but, I think I can safely say, that the only poll numbers that Rush looks at are those posted by Arbitron.
    I think though, that this controversy has had one effect:
    It seems to have stiffened some spines in the U.S.Senate where the Omnibus Spending Bill for 2009 seems to be a bit short of the required support needed to pick our pockets.

    AD - RtR/OS (d9d44c)

  315. It is just precious when absolute Leftists drop by to tell conservatives how they should think, act, etc … Especially when it comes from Leftists that have been openly advocating for Bush’s failure, calling him a war criminal, fascist, racist, war mongering cowboy.

    JD (9e1dca)

  316. Having said that, what definitely is not good for the conservative movement is Rush’s attempt to excommunicate people who disagree with him. It would be one thing if you were sitting on a winning ticket, but – again, read the polls – your core positions are unpopular and Rush is suffocating the attempt to adjust them.

    The base wants you all to stay diehards, hostile to any conservative who doesn’t fit on the cookie cutter, and mostly, so do I. That way you can lose the next seven consecutive elections.

    You have a very narrow perspective of Conservatism and how it should be applied in today’s environment. The liberal pendulum has swung so far to the left in its radical thinking of how this nation should be governed, yes, many of the radical right want to return to the “cookie-cutter” that leaves out the portion of a party that believes appeasing the masses with false promises of collectivism, centralized government welfare dependency, and the “rich vs. the poor” mentality, “delusionally or dishonestly” speaking of course. But, please do go on with your pseudomembranous colitis solipsism. It’s entertainment value is priceless.

    Comment by JD — 3/7/2009 @ 8:45 am

    Well said JD….. :)

    Rovin (a5d8b7)

  317. “Frankly, shouting a bunch of wild-eyed c*ap repeatedly and refusing to acknowledge any information or argument to the contrary is a good way to build a decent horde of unquestioning zealots, and a horde of unquestioning zealots are a useful tool in a political contest.”

    glasnost – Are you talking about Kos, DogShitLake, Olbermann, and Maher? It doean’t sound like you listen to Rush much if at all.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  318. Man, having even the tacit approval of that glasnost cat would give me pause, were I in Pat’s shoes. But then, I’m not.

    sdferr (8643ba)

  319. Hey, JD, try this on for size: My daughter enlisted in ’06 because of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq. She spent 15 months in Iraq, risking her life so those leftists could hope her situation would become more tenuous.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  320. sdferr – glasnost is a chuck and duck turd dropper. He usually doesn’t stay around to talk because he knows he’ll get hammered.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  321. So is he just gaming the situation (ie. knowing that no one here trusts him, he sets out to undermine Pat’s stance merely by pretending to agree with it) do you think daleyrocks? Or do you trust that he’s honestly stated his position vis a vis Pat’s position?

    sdferr (8643ba)

  322. One of the best defenses of Rush out there:

    What’s going on? “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” said chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. “This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

    Things. Now we know what they are. The markets’ recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions — the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic — for enacting his “Big Bang” agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.

    Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy — worthy and weighty as they may be — are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime.

    And he never even mentions Rush Limbaugh, he does not have to, the emphasis is where it should be…

    Joe (17aeff)

  323. sdferr, I have not read everything glasnost wrote above, just enough to know my daughter risked her life for people of integrity and for people like it. It is one of the occasional commenters I’ve learned to scan past. (And reason Commenter should precede Comment in the threads.)

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  324. Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/7/2009 @ 9:04 am

    Whoa John, maybe you should let Jesus keep the monopoly on the martyr business.

    Ed from PA (d99227)

  325. This whole framing issue can be turned around. Reagan did that with the leftist trope that government redistribution is nice and conservatives are mean. Since Reagan was so obviously not mean, the attacks on him backfired. The leftist attacks on Reagan made themn themselves, and a bit unbalanced.

    Reagan believed his philosophy was right, and that the truth would prevail. That’s an attractive, confident way of stating belief in limited government. Since Reagan used to be on the left, he could address them with a mixture of pity and hope they would grow out of their delusion. The hard left was furious and frustrated. Reagan refused to fit their stereotype, leaving them no opening to flog their meme.

    So it is possible to take big-government leftists up on their own chosen subject and beat them with it. That message should be constantly kept in mind by the Protein Wisdom crowd.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  326. er,
    “The leftist attacks on Reagan made themselves look a bit unbalanced.”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  327. Way to go Patterico!

    Over 650 comments (I wonder how many hits with no comment…) in just 2 threads… have you sent a cigar and note of thanks to Limbaugh?

    The toddler presidents childish tantrum has been almost as good for you as it has for Limbaugh…. and tha’t a good thing: the more that take time to actually LISTEN rather than ‘hear about’ and knee jerk, the better.

    Syllabucks (ef6966)

  328. Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 3/7/2009 @ 9:39 am

    Perhaps because they just were, and are still!

    AD - RtR/OS (d9d44c)

  329. Oh! And FYI: Democrats nearly double Limbaugh’s audience

    Must be something to those current democrap buzzwords “Don’t let a good crisis go to waste“, eh?

    Syllabucks (ef6966)

  330. Syllabucks, I posted here and here, and cross-posted here about the good idea that the Democrats had on going after Rush. Funny thing is leftists laughed at me. Thanks for providing evidence supporting my commentary.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  331. With Clinton we got high taxes (bad) but balanced budgets imposed by the spending caps in Congress (good). With Bush we got tax cuts (good) but deficits (bad). With Obama we get tax hikes (bad) and astronomical deficits (bad).

    Victor Davis Hanson

    But what’s scary about where Obama is leading us is just how pervasive his tax hikes are going to be. Not only are we going to see massive hikes in federal taxes which will be felt by every single American (expiring Bush tax cuts, big new taxes on the energy industry), but the “stimulus” money Obama has sent to the states (which itself must eventually be paid off with big new taxes) is going to create new government that will inevitably have to be supported by new state-level taxes.

    Obama’s policies are going to result in new taxes upon new taxes upon new taxes, and most worrisome of all is that the revenue from those new taxes still isn’t going to reduce our budget deficits or the national debt. Meaning not only are we going to be giving up more to the government, we’re going to slip further into debt along the way.

    Rob

    Given this, isn’t the rational position to want Obama to fail? You can say it different, perhaps you could say it as you want Obama to change from his current path, but the intention is still the same.

    Joe (17aeff)

  332. The “moderates” are abandoning Obama’s ship in droves. I think that’s why they call those things “ratlines.” One big reason why the Democrats took Congress in 2006 was that Emmanuel recruited conservative Democrats to run in districts that had vulnerable Republican incumbents. Well, those Democrats are the vulnerable incumbents now. This is why Steele needs to be concentrating on candidate recruitment and leave Limbaugh alone.

    I think Jeff Goldstein is becoming unhinged. I used to read his blog but hadn’t in a while. Jeez !

    Mike K (2cf494)

  333. Every new tax and/or regulation drains another bit of energy and innovation from the economy, until what we have left will make us look fondly back to the Carter-stagflation years as robust.

    AD - RtR/OS (d9d44c)

  334. Hey, does anyone know a link where I can track year-by-year which senators are coming up for election?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  335. So is he just gaming the situation (ie. knowing that no one here trusts him, he sets out to undermine Pat’s stance merely by pretending to agree with it) do you think daleyrocks? Or do you trust that he’s honestly stated his position vis a vis Pat’s position?

    I’m mostly here to enjoy my sense of smug self-superiority. And I’ll continue to do so! Seriously, I can’t be bothered to have a deliberate strategy on something like this.

    See, this is a perfect case study in why you can’t form an effective political movement, or, in fact, be right about arguments.
    You’re not capable of separating the empirical validity of my arguments from the fact that I’m rude.

    You get as far into my statement as “this dude doesn’t respect me”, and then your brain kind of shuts down. But, see, in the real world, jerks are sometimes correct, and back-slappers who mouth your buzzwords are still disasterously wrong!

    And I don’t stick around for the same reason I don’t bother to be nice – because most of you respond with insults, mockery and scorn whether you’re hearing the polite liberal argument or the nasty one. If I had 40 hours a week to devote to this place, I could form well-crafted arguments, do lots of research, shoot down the misinformation, gradually gain respect a la aphrael, and I would get in return…
    well, some anonymous commenters on a website would be nice to me, and I’d be unemployed.
    The cost/benefit doesn’t work out, folks.

    Seriously, are there any doubts whatsoever about who, in a room filled with 33 Republican, 33 Democratic, and 33 Independent voters, would be more likely to generate a positive gut reaction, Patterico or Jeff Goldstein? Don’t you guys have the capacity to make basic character judgements?

    Ok, let’s dish out some praise for once.

    This whole framing issue can be turned around. Reagan did that with the leftist trope that government redistribution is nice and conservatives are mean. Since Reagan was so obviously not mean, the attacks on him backfired. The leftist attacks on Reagan made themn themselves, and a bit unbalanced.

    I think he meant “look” a bit unbalanced, but this guy is definitely onto something. For another example, please see Newt Gingrich vs. Bill Clinton, 1995. That’s where the Rush Limbaugh / Jeff Goldstein approach is headed – they’re going to urge some sort of Samson Option action – a good example here would be states refusing to accept stimulus funds – something that causes direct and specific harm to the average voters’ interests, in order to prove their point (and, from their point of view, fight back against some abstract, long-term future threat that the average voter doesn’t give a dam* about).

    And it’s going to hurt them, big time. That’s Obama’s best hope for pulling through a macroecon situation that would threaten the popularity of any sitting present and that there’s no set of econ policies that could avoid in the short run. His best hope is that you folks take the spotlight off him by appearing to be out to screw over apparently well-intentioned actions, merely to cut him down. Voters don’t like that, and no amount of preaching will make them like that.

    I would never be offering this advice if there was a prayer that it would somehow be adopted by the movement as a whole. Luckily, both Pat and I are too insignificant for that to happen.

    glasnost (395b7f)

  336. Go here John, then list them by the “choose a class” option.

    sdferr (8643ba)

  337. Where is my gas mask? Dr K, did you swipe it?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  338. Thanks, sdferr, that’s just what I was looking for, bookmarking it now.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  339. Man, having even the tacit approval of that glasnost cat would give me pause, were I in Pat’s shoes. But then, I’m not.

    Not to belabor the point, but.. here we go again! Is this how you actually live your lives in non-political context? You know a racist who is careful to practice good dental hygiene, so you decide to stop brushing your teeth? Store clerk is rude to you and appears to like his IPOD, so you decide that IPODs must be a waste of money?

    This is called “tribal thinking”, and it’s the exact kind of dumb sh*t that Pat is trying to wean off of. Oooh, I’m a nasty liberal retard! Quick, do the opposite of whatever I just said instead of assessing the situation on its own merits! LOL!

    glasnost (395b7f)

  340. Those of the Left such as our friend glasnost, cannot wrap their minds around the concept that for the President to attack a private individual (even a very public one such as Rush) is wrong, and beneath the dignity of the office.
    Yet, the Left rose up in full-throated fury when politicians of the Right (such as McCarthy) do the same.
    If it wasn’t for the principal of hypocrisy, the Left would have no principals at all.

    AD - RtR/OS (d9d44c)

  341. I do happily admit to having a kind of knee-jerk reaction whenever I see an individual jihadi leader or a spokesperson for a jihadi organization approving of any particular US Gov policy. I immediately pull up short to ask, hey, what’s going on here? Why is this enemy of my country happy with our policy? Could there be something amiss with that policy? It’s a crude metric, I’ll admit but it’s worth a look see anyhow.

    sdferr (8643ba)

  342. sdferr – Sorry, I wasn’t watching the board. I see Comrade glasnost started to answer your question himself.

    He’s a hard, hard left-cult commenter with standard BDS, anti-conservative bullshit talking points and complete revisionist world history. My choice – gaming the argument because he’s just a fuckstick by nature.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  343. If we adopt a rule that we will police our language to avoid stridency or offence, the Leftists will simply invoke Alinky’s Rule 4 (“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”) and twists and reinterpret every utterance to manufacture offence and stridency.

    Molon Labe (640aad)

  344. Comment by Jeff G on 3/7 @ 1:50 pm #

    Patterico’s not a sell-out artist that some people claim he is here. It’s obvious that commenters like BigD and Joe don’t want to take the time to try to understand what he is saying and instead for whatever reason insist on being spoonfed like leftist morons.

    Thr first sentence of Jeff’s reply to Patterico after quoting his post was a glib of an argument not made by Patterico:

    “In suggesting that the trouble here is that Republicans are straddled with the burden of having to explain Limbaugh’s nuance, Patterico (and Allah) are not only conceding the linguistic ground to the left, they are now actually helping perpetuate what, at least on Patterico’s part, he knows to be a lie**….”

    Although I’m not particularly happy with Patterico’s position on Limbaugh, I didn’t recognize the position Jeff described.

    That line, to recap, followed from this, which I quoted:

    I know: when [Limbaugh] says he hopes Obama fails, he doesn’t mean he wants to see Americans suffer. He just doesn’t want liberal policies enacted because he thinks they’re bad for the country. I get it. I agree with that.

    But, you know, that’s nuance.

    The problem is, Americans have short attention spans and don’t always do nuance well. Just by writing the title of this post the way I did, I’ll get an angry reaction from some — even though, if you read the post, I haven’t said anything particularly negative about Limbaugh. As Allahpundit says:

    “It’s Republicans who are suffering from having to thread the needle between defending Limbaugh and rejecting the “I want him to fail” rhetoric. What harm has Rush suffered? His stature’s never been greater, as he himself acknowledges right here.”

    Indeed.

    In the quoted portion, we get several admissions and assertions. 1. Patterico “gets” what Rush meant. 2. What Rush said was provocative, and understanding him required nuance. 3. Americans have a short attention span and “don’t do nuance well.” 4. Per Allah, the result of Rush’s provocateurism — coupled with Americans’ general lack of nuance — is that “Republicans [...] are suffering from having to thread the needle between defending Limbaugh and rejecting the “I want him to fail” rhetoric.” 5. More, Rush hasn’t suffered from this — only Republicans forced to try to defend him have. 6. To which Patrick agrees: “Indeed.”

    Now let’s look at my response again — the one that “misrepresents” the quote it follows:

    “In suggesting that the trouble here is that Republicans are straddled with the burden of having to explain Limbaugh’s nuance,[2,3,4,5,6] Patterico (and Allah) are not only conceding the linguistic ground to the left, they are now actually helping perpetuate what, at least on Patterico’s part, he knows to be a lie**….[1]”

    Nowhere have I ever argued that there aren’t times for changing rhetorical strategy based on audience, context, etc. In fact, I would argue that of course one needs to do so. But the context here was a conservative radio host being asked to give preemptive support to a man who he identifies as a threat to our system of government. Further, the host has an established style. And his audience expects a certain kind of formulation. If anything, Limbaugh matched his utterance precisely to his intended audience(s). And I say audiences because, like Howard Stern, Rush knows that much of his audience is those that hate him and are looking to try to take his words out of context. Does he bait them to do so? Of course. Is that a winning strategy? For him it’s been. But what Patterico wants to know is, is this a winning strategy for Republicans and conservatives?

    His answer is no — and in making that argument, he is essentially saying that Rush Limbaugh is either 1) doing his job poorly as a voice for conservatism, at least in this instance; and 2) Patterico thinks there is a better way for Rush to do that job.

    This is a question of tactics and taste, for Patterico — and nowhwere have I made the claim that those aren’t valid concerns.

    Still, my post links two instances — Bill Bennett’s “racism” problem, even though he clearly tried very hard to frame his argument in a way where it couldn’t be taken out of context; and Tony Snow’s use of “tar baby”, wherein his accusers literally admitted to knowing that he meant nothing racial by the use of the phrase, which has several established meanings.

    In both instances, the left was able to take meaning and resignify it a way that it would be used to taint conservatives with racism. And in both cases they should not have been allowed to do so — because that is not how language works, unless WE agree to allow it to work that way. And if we do, we cede the grounds of meaning to those who would presume to tell us what it is we mean.

    In the case of Limbaugh, might he have used a more diplomatic approach? Naturally. Would a different approach have proven more productive for conservatism, or more helpful to Republicans? That’s debatable: from my perspective, anything that shines a light on the way the left coopts meaning is useful. From Rush’s perspective, it builds his brand. Patterico and Allah think Rush’s utterance, in this instance, made things difficult.

    Fine.

    But then, I never said that Patterico and others were ceding ground to the left intentionally or even knowingly. What I’m arguing is that the impetus for questioning the way Rush delivered the line is the concern that his doing so makes it difficult to defend him, because it requires nuance to get around what we know the left will do with such an utterance. And that could be avoided.

    My contention is there are several ways to avoid such a thing. Patterico and Allah illustrate one such way — a kind of self-editing in the utterance. But that is really up to the speaker — and, because none of us are Rush Limbaugh, we aren’t responsible for his meaning or way of making his point.

    The other — and to my mind, proper — way to avoid this kind of discomfort is to point out that Rush speaks for himself, and that his meaning was clear. He meant what he meant.

    If you would like then to argue about whether what he meant is a valid wish, let’s do so. But what we REFUSE TO ACCEPT is any formulation of Rush Limbaugh’s words that don’t respect his intent. Which is precisely what the media is requiring us to address: their refiguring of Rush’s statement, cropped and edited in a way that is most suggestive of nefariousness on his part — and formulated that way intentionally to put us on the defensive.

    As the Bennett and Snow examples show, ANYTHING can be excerpted and used in this way — precisely because we allow it to be by giving credence to a certain idea of interpretation that is, by its very nature, incoherent, and also by its very nature undermines the common ground for meaning, and so opens up discourse to meaning by will and consensus of motivated groups who simply insist the loudest.

    This is not how language works, and to accept those premises is necessarily to cede ground. Given that the only reason we are concerned about Rush’s tone is that we fear we’ll have to explain ourselves to unnuanced Americans once the press is able to formulate his statement in a way that suits them, it is my argument that it is best to stop the latter than to worry ourselves over the former.

    The former is a tactic. The latter is is the strategy. And it is the strategy that needs to be defeated.

    In short, we are happy to have a discussion about what he MEANT, if that’s something that needs discussing (and of course, further, we are under no obligation to do so: Steele can just tell people to ask Rush about what Rush said, because he’s quite capable of explaining it); but we will no longer — and SHOULD NO LONGER — dignify questions that begin by taking us out of context.

    And rather than worry that because unnuanced Americans will buy into such dishonest formulations, we should alter our formulations (which the Bennett and Snow examples prove is a losing strategy), it is time instead to insist that the dishonest formulations be treated as such, and called out as such, so that it becomes unproductive for the media to continue the practice.

    Jeff G’s comment

    Joe (dcebbd)

  345. I know that Jeff G. comment above is way long, but I have a tendency to post Jeff G comments here and it is well said…so call me outlawy. Seriously it could be a new Patterico thread in itself. And if the issue was not important, it would not have generated over a 1000 comments (if you combine all the threads)

    Joe (dcebbd)

  346. The comment from Jeff G which you reposted includes quoted material which was lost. Now it’s a confusing mess. Suggest you let him speak for himself.

    Molon Labe (640aad)

  347. “But then, I never said that Patterico and others were ceding ground to the left intentionally or even knowingly.”

    Ah, but Jeff did in the first sentence of his actual post and then accused Patterico of lying about it, whether he knew it or not in the comments. This is a flat out back track from Jeff, whether he acknowledges it or not.

    “But what we REFUSE TO ACCEPT is any formulation of Rush Limbaugh’s words that don’t respect his intent.”

    I don’t believe Patterico suggested that you should have to, but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

    _________________________________________________

    Jeff failed to see where he called Patterico a liar or misrepresented his position in the last kerfuffle, so at least he’s got consistency going for him. I thought he was going to leave it alone.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  348. While Hillary beclowns herself in Europe, Obama has apparently been budy on the home front. From Gateway Pundit:

    It Has Begun: Obama Announces He Is Open to Appeasing Taliban

    In a shocking move Barack Obama announced today that he was open to appeasing the anti-American Taliban fundamentalists.
    Astute Bloggers caught this from The New York Times:

    President Obama declared in an interview that the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.
    But, lets be clear… It’s only the “moderate elements” of radical Islamist fundamentalist organization that he is interested in appeasing.

    Who might that be?
    The moderate members who hide women under dark cloaks?
    The moderate members who keep women from holding jobs?
    The moderate members who burn down barbershops and bomb girl’s schools?
    The moderate members who believe in Shariah law?
    The moderate members who beat women in public?

    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/shocker-obama-announces-he-is-open-to.html

    The world has been awaiting those moderate radicals! People like Hax will be so pleased.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  349. Obama reaches out to the Taliban

    When the U.S. reached out in Anbar, it was not to al Qaeda, but Sunni tribes in the area. Reaching out to the Taliban is not the answer, reaching out to Pashtun tribes and Pashtun leaders may be. It is a subtle but important distinction that the NYTs and (more scary) the Obama Administration don’t seem to get.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  350. President Obama declared in an interview that the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.

    If you read Kilcullen’s book, which I reviewed on Amazon a week or two ago, there could be something in this. The trouble is, I don’t trust Obama to get this right. The Taliban are in Pakistan and may well take over the country, including its nukes. The Afghans are extremely primitive people who cannot be brought into the 21st century in less than 50 years. I’m talking about the society, not individuals. There is a nurse from Afghanistan who works with my wife. The villages are little changed from 1897 when Churchill wrote The Malakand Field Force, which is still in print and read by our troops.

    The infiltrators, who are called “The Crazies” by the Afghans, cannot be dealt with but they are only about 3% of the people who are fighting us at any given time. They are the suicide bombers and the ones who invade the capitol.

    I just don’t think the Obama people are knowledgeable enough or smart enough to do this. They’ll mess it up although I think Afghanistan may be lost anyway. He may be trying to save face.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  351. [...] “irrational” to hope Obama fails but okay to hope he changes his mind on policy; opinions differ as to whether that’s what Rush meant all along. And with that, I’ll join Ace and [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » The obligatory “Rush rips Newt for calling him irrational” post (e2f069)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0745 secs.