My Photo

« A Stimulus For Tomorrow - Part 3 - Heck Yeah, America! Get Some! (Patriotic Jingle And Response To Hilzoy) | Main | Obama's First Gesture Toward Iran »

January 29, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e2010537017284970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Rush and a Push and the Land is Ours:

Comments

John Yoo gets space in the WSJ too. Including this:

What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)

Gee, President Bush personally authorized the waterboarding, ya' don't say.

You left out "Donovan McNabb is not that good of a quarterback".

Of course ESPN has more sense than the GOP, so they dropped El Rushbo like a hot potato after that remark, so perhaps that doesn't count.

Honing in on the important point, I wish people would quit giving credit for "It's A Good Life" to the tv show adaption, rather than Jerome Bixby and the actual story, since all the tv show did is popularize the already acclaimed (in the sf world) story. It's Bixby who deserves credit for his story, not Rod Serling's tv show.

[/pet peeve]

"Gee, President Bush personally authorized the waterboarding, ya' don't say."

Yes, not news.

Eric, you forget that Rush and the Republicans never use the term Democratic in referrinf to the Democratic Party. It is always Democrat. I do sometimes wonder if Democrats used the word Republic Party instead of Republican if they would mind.

You left out "Donovan McNabb is not that good of a quarterback".

I think I defended El Rushbo for that one (the substantive part about McNabb being not that good, not the crap about people refusing to criticize him because he was black). IIRC it was how well the Eagles did when McNabb was hurt at the time, and comparisons of this Q-Back rating to Jay Fiedler, or something.

Anyway, don't forget the Magic Negro song, Femi-Nazis, and all the cracks he made at Chelsea Clinton.

A bit off-topic, but the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay For Women Act is the first bill signed by President Obama. Yay!

Gary: duly noted re: Bixby. I was simply ignorant.

Hey, Gary, at least he credited the TV version, not the bastardized version in the "Twilight Zone" movie, where they tried giving it a happy ending.

It's Bixby who deserves credit for his story

And he was great in My Favorite Martian.

Dammit, Rush, you've doomed the Republican Party to decades of unpopularity, irrelevance and minority status . . . but it's good that you did that. Real good.

Hey, Gary, at least he credited the TV version, not the bastardized version in the "Twilight Zone" movie, where they tried giving it a happy ending.

Jeebus KCinDC, do you think me some sort of philistine? [/umbrage]

They can make him their official spokeman, and it still doesn't mean a word the man says is relevant in discussions between adults about what ought to be done in the public interest.

Eric: How did you leave out this?

Despicable.

OT, but Blagojevich is no longer governor.

46%—$414 billion—will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me

What a clown.

Rush, when the phone doesn't ring, that will be Barack Hussein Obama calling to ask for your direction on how to spend tax cuts in the stimulus package.

Don't call him, he'll call you.

And the Wall Street Journal gives him the column inches to talk that stupid trash.

And Gingrey has to kiss Limbaugh's ass, or else Rush will call out the flying monkeys and take his House seat away.

Seriously, it must suck to be them.

By Rush logic, we should have only invaded half of Iraq.

Yeah and it was so smart for the big O to pick a fight with Limbaugh right out of the gate. Give conservatives a rallying point. Maybe it’s more of that long tern genius youze always mention – I don’t see it.

Bedtime: I think I included a link to that Pence footage.

"Yeah and it was so smart for the big O to pick a fight with Limbaugh right out of the gate. Give conservatives a rallying point."

If conservatives want to rally around Rush Limbaugh, it's their intellectual funeral. It will also ultimately be their electoral funeral, because as it happens, know-nothingism doesn't work. (Aside from bringing down existing failing major political parties.)

If conservatives want to rally around Limbaugh, please go right ahead.


Yeah and it was so smart for the big O to pick a fight with Limbaugh right out of the gate. Give conservatives a rallying point. Maybe it’s more of that long tern genius youze always mention – I don’t see it.

Um.., OCSteve, do remember when Sarah Palin was nominated for VP and you told us how we were all dooooomed! doomed I say!

How did that work out, anyway?

Yeah and it was so smart for the big O to pick a fight with Limbaugh right out of the gate.

Yeah, because otherwise Limbaugh was going to take it easy on Obama.

Jesus wept.

Plus the fact that the Republicans need Rush Limbaugh as a reason to rally rather than, you know, doing something for America or somesuch, says volumes. But go ahead and keep defending it, it's all good.

To answer your questions and since most of your comments seem to be from the liberal spectrum, I will answer as a conservative.

Yes, I have always felt the antics at Abu Ghraib were indeed the equivalent of " Frat pranks" Come on, with underwear on the head. They were pranks meant to humiliate not torture. Just as frat pranks are also meant to humiliate and ridicule. Please document the deaths of detainees at Abu Ghraib from US soldiers. The prosecutions were all for mistreatment.

There have been many phoney soldiers and they have been exposed as such. Beauchamp anyone? The New Republic with their fake stories.

Also that minorities seem to blame racism for the failure to learn in school and try to get ahead unlike the Vietnam refugees that came in 1979 and have integrated and mostly suceed from a position of a total refugees with nothing other than their clothes.

Have you forgotten Harry Reid that America has lost the Iraq war before the surge and how that will never work? Well it did work. We will see if Obama will lose that sucesss by undercutting the Iraqi effort.

Code Pink and their hatred of soldiers despite their original false talk of this was for the soldiers. They barricaded recruiting stations in California.

Now are all Democrats and liberals tarred with the same brush? NO, of course not. I may not like Rushbo bombastic style, but his ideas are usually conservative and we do agree on those. This recent proposal is nothing but a stunt, but someone had to get the GOP to realize that they are the minority opposition and if they want the support of conservatives to get voted in, to act like conservatives. Democrats have rarely been apolegetic about their beliefs and ideas and they won because of that.

If the GOP want to win again they must boldy advance conservative values of fiscal conservatism and small government and keeping the nanny state out of our lives. This was eroded under the Bush " compassionate conservatism and massive government spending.

The Liberal left and the Democrats won. Now Obama race is a non event to me. All I care is about his policies and how effective he will govern. He has made some amature mistakes in stopping the military tribunals that were authorized by law by Congrees. Now a military judge has refused to stop and said if the US givernment want to withdraw charges then maybe the detainees will have to be let go. That is the reason for these trials, convict or release them. If they are too dangerous to release try them and lock them up or sentance to capital punishment. If they can't do that, release the terrorists and next time kill them on the battlefield.

But so far Obama has a new slate. The latest boondogle of a 1 trillion spending that had nothing to do with stimulus or jobs was a bad move. No review or debate. If there were good programs run them through normal appropiations and debate and air the pros and cons. Not rush them in a bill labeled emergency stimlulus.

I just thought you may want a conservatiive viewpoint. And you are right. Rush does have a lot of influence and subject to criticism by the liberals is a correct position.

No one is above being criticized. Neither Rush, Bush or Obama.

// given Limbaugh's recent declaration that he hopes the Obama Presidency fails, consequences to the American public be damned,//

For what it's worth, this is not an accurate portrayal of what Limbaugh said. He said something to the effect that he believes Obamas policies will be destructive to the country and therefore he hopes Obama fails in his attempts to bring them about. In his view "the American public" would "be damned" if they came about.

ThatLeftTurnInABQ: OCSteve, do remember when Sarah Palin was nominated for VP and you told us how we were all dooooomed! doomed I say!

Yup. And I’ve said multiple times since that I was glad I was ultimately wrong, I have no problem admitting it. Anything else you would like me to admit I was wrong about? There is a long list… In the short term though, I was right on. It did rally the party, it was a big deal, and it could have won him the election if the economy had not went in the crapper. If you predicted that please link away…


Phil: Yeah, because otherwise Limbaugh was going to take it easy on Obama.

Well of course not. The point is that after Obama’s remarks and the following media attention, Limbaugh’s audience shot up by some number that would have never been there if not for that. So Obama brought Limbaugh some number of new listeners. Some of them may stick around. Some may become converts. Smart.

But go ahead and keep defending it, it's all good.

That’s me alright – a big big defender.


Back when Rush Limbaugh made his "phony soldiers" mouth-fart, which was shortly after the "Betray Us" controversy, my suggestion was that the Dems should offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution:

"It is the sense of the Senate that radio commentator Rush Limbaugh has an absolute first-amendment right to call Iraq veterans who oppose President Bush's policies 'phony soldiers'."

I would have loved to see how the GOP senators, having recently voted to deplore MoveOn's assault on Gen. Petraeus's tender sensibility, would come down on that one.

The best way to make vile idiots look vile and idiotic is to encourage them to talk -- and then advertise their ripest sayings to the vast majority of sane Americans who do not hear them first-hand. You go, Rush! Keep up the great work!

--TP

There have been many phoney soldiers and they have been exposed as such. Beauchamp anyone? The New Republic with their fake stories.

Wait, Lisa, are you claiming that Scott Beauchamp was not a member of the US Armed Forces? I demand proof of this claim.

Yes, I have always felt the antics at Abu Ghraib were indeed the equivalent of " Frat pranks" Come on, with underwear on the head. They were pranks meant to humiliate not torture. Just as frat pranks are also meant to humiliate and ridicule.

And rape is just sticking a penis in a vagina, just like sex is just sticking a penis in a vagina. What's the big honking deal?

Also that minorities seem to blame racism for the failure to learn in school and try to get ahead unlike the Vietnam refugees that came in 1979 and have integrated and mostly suceed from a position of a total refugees with nothing other than their clothes.

Can we get some cites here? What minorities are we talking about, and what are they apparently all failing to learn, and where have they blamed racism for it.

If this is the face of modern conservativism, the Democrats should have nothing to worry about for the foreseeable future.

OCSteve, if you honestly think that Sarah Palin could have won the election for the Republicans sans the economic problems, we actually live in completely different realities.

Lisa, I'm going to set aside taking issue with any other of your views, to gawk in amazement at this one: "Democrats have rarely been apolegetic about their beliefs and ideas...."

[/gawk]

"He said something to the effect"

I'll engage in my wacky habit of linking to what someone actually said, rather than paraphrasing.

Of course, the point is that if our president fails, our country fails, and our people fail.

But defeating liberalism is more important to Rush Limbaugh than those trivial points.

Limbaugh, July, 2006: "'I’m getting so sick and tired of people rooting for the defeat of the good guys,' he complained."

Rush used to have other views about people who root for the president to fail, but, naturally, that was then, this is now.

Yeah and it was so smart for the big O to pick a fight with Limbaugh right out of the gate.

I missed the part where Obama picked a fight with Rush. Too bad for me, sounds like fun.

I'm trying to get away from calling people names, because it's kind of a negative energy to put out there in the world. But some things just can't be helped.

Rush Limbaugh is a dick. He is, personally, a dick, and he is a dick in his public persona. He is a dick for living. Being a dick is his talent and his destiny, and he has embraced it with both hands.

He is a dick, and I personally don't give good god damn what he says about anything.

He has an audience of 20 million people for his brand of "entertainment". I bet 20 million people a day watch Jenna Jamison service her well-hung co-stars. Maybe we should ask her how the stimulus money should be spent. Her qualifications to opine on the topic and Limbaugh's appear to be roughly equivalent.

If members of the Republican House find it necessary to lick the boots of Rush Limbaugh, that is their problem. I don't see that anybody else needs to give a flying you-know-what about any of the rancorous, self-aggrandizing bile that pours from his ugly mind.

The response I would love to hear Obama make to any statement of Rush Limbaugh's is, approximately, "Who gives a shit what that man says?". Obama's more civil than I, so, sadly, we won't hear those exact words.

More's the pity.

Want to make the world a better place? Ignore Rush Limbaugh.

Thanks -

OCSteve: And I’ve said multiple times since that I was glad I was ultimately wrong, I have no problem admitting it. Anything else you would like me to admit I was wrong about?

Your ability to make predictions.

I don’t see it.

But who would expect you to?

"Of course, the point is that if our president fails, our country fails, and our people fail."

Oh, I disagree completely! The president is not that powerful, unless he tries to usurp power (and they all have, IMHO).

How many presidents would you say were successful? Would that mean they got 51% of their agenda enacted?

Our country does not fail if the president fails, and our people certainly do not. Do I think we're in good shape right now? um, Nope.

But I think it took at least 40 years and a bipartisan effort to get us here. And I blame Congress more than all the Presidents in that time put together.

btw, Rush has been irrelevant to me and to any opinions I hold since I first him many years ago and thought he was nuts. I'm sure that he may have had some ideas that I would be in agreement with, I just don't care to find out what they are.

"Democrats have rarely been apolegetic about their beliefs and ideas and they won because of that."

What Gary said. This is, to my ears, proof that liberals and conservatives see the world very, very differently. -- I'm not saying this in an even slightly sarcastic way. It's just that I think Democrats have been apologizing for our beliefs since, well, forever.

"Rush and the Republicans never use the term Democratic in referrin[g] to the Democratic Party. It is always Democrat. I do sometimes wonder if Democrats used the word Republic Party instead of Republican if they would mind."

I am puzzled as to why anyone would think that a commentator's use of non-standard English is persuasive. Use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective is the mark of an ignoramus.

Perhaps we should call Limbaugh and his cohorts the Ignoram Party.

It's just that I think Democrats have been apologizing for our beliefs since, well, forever.

Sorry about that...

Phil: … if you honestly think that Sarah Palin could have won the election for the Republicans sans the economic problems, we actually live in completely different realities.

Woah. Dude. Surely this is not your first realization of that? ;)

russell: I missed the part where Obama picked a fight with Rush.

Unprovoked, in his meeting with Republicans on the hill: “You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,…” By Monday Limbaugh’s audience was up, waiting to hear his response.

He is a dick, and I personally don't give good god damn what he says about anything.

Me neither. So? Is it a good idea to poke him with a stick for no discernable gain?

Me neither. So? Is it a good idea to poke him with a stick for no discernable gain?

If you take him and his positions seriously or think he wields real power, probably not.

On the other hand...

I think that it was very smart of Obama to pick a fight with the Congressional Republicans about Rush Limbaugh. By so doing he has provoked Republicans into publically acknowledging their relationship with Limbaugh(their lips are attached to his ass) thus making clear the fact that they are every bit as bad as he is. For years conservatives have tried to pretend that Limbaugh, Coutler, Malkin etc weren't conservatives or weren't influential etc. etc. etc.

But now two Congressional Republicans have apologized to Rush for not being sufficiently subservient to him.

Thanks, Obama.

Is it a good idea to poke him with a stick for no discernable gain?

Why not? Is there any reason not to get wee Rush to open his mouth wide and vomit up his little balls of crap for loyal Republicans to pounce on and make much of and admire? Looks like a very energy-efficient way of making clear to the smarter Republicans that Rush is indeed the level to which their party has fallen, and is still crawling downwards.

I could be wrong. It's been known to happen. But I've been right a lot more often than you have... ;-)

"I missed the part where Obama picked a fight with Rush. Too bad for me, sounds like fun."

Here.

3d: I am pretty sure the clips I heard this week were of Limbaugh saying, "I hope he fails."

As anti-Bush as I was, I never once said those words -- too much was at stake then, too much is at stake now.

Anyhow, how do you -- or any Rush supporter (if you are not) -- reconcile this Limbaugh pronouncement: "We have to bend over, grab the angles, bend over forward, backward whichever, because his father was black, because he’s the first black president."

How could anyone who talks like that be a serious part of our national discourse? Amazing.

I'm with hilzoy, Gary, russell and everyone else who sees this only hurting the already damaged Republican Party.

Sure, Limbaugh has 20 million listeners, 20 million members of the right wing of the Republican Party. They aren't going anywhere, and that's fine. But they aren't embracing an expansion of the GOP with this kind of talk -- and the Republicans need to expand to even begin to make a comeback. Can't they figure that out?


Meanwhile, Eric Cantor, the #2 House Republican leader:

[...] House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) will soon issue a statement contending that Obama's promise to "put an end to petty politics" is "threatened" as the White House and their allies "are making political threats rather than crafting a bipartisan economic stimulus plan."

He'll call on Obama to "immediately disavow" plans by liberal interest groups who have announced their intention to run attack ads against the Republicans. These groups, organized under the Americans United for Change umbrella, coordinate regularly with Congressional Democrats and are in touch with White House officials.

Earlier, an Obama aide said that the White House was not directly involved in these most recent efforts and had not encouraged its allies. The plans were reported in the Politico by its chief political reporter, Mike Allen.

"Let us be clear: attack ads will not create jobs or help struggling families but will only serve to undermine our nation's desire for bipartisanship. Instead of thinking about winning at any cost, we should all be thinking about creating the jobs Americans need," Cantor intends to say.

Just like Boehner and Cantor and the Republicans are demanding that Rush Limbaugh and the other rightwing radio talk show hosts stop attacking Obama and the Democrats.

We've all noticed that happening, right?

Lisa:

Yes, I have always felt the antics at Abu Ghraib were indeed the equivalent of " Frat pranks" Come on, with underwear on the head. They were pranks meant to humiliate not torture. Just as frat pranks are also meant to humiliate and ridicule. Please document the deaths of detainees at Abu Ghraib from US soldiers. The prosecutions were all for mistreatment.

At this link, you will find images of a detainee that was beaten to death at Abu Ghraib. You will also see images of detainees whose flesh was torn at by dogs, with trails of blood on the prison floor.

I know of no fraternity at which such practices are common. Do you?

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560

There have been many phoney soldiers and they have been exposed as such. Beauchamp anyone? The New Republic with their fake stories.

Beauchamp was a real soldier. Serving in a war zone. In combat.

And the Beauchamp story wasn't so much fake as a smear job:

http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2008/08/scott_beauchamp_the_new_republic_scandal_01.php

And the Beauchamp story wasn't so much fake as a smear job…

Wrong, but pass. I still get annoying ACLU mail every two weeks from my bet with cleek. It’s just embarrassing when you’re known as a right wing death monger and the neighbors see you with a big ACLU envelope in your hands…

I hope you do not feel beat up upon, OSCteve, but really I can't think of anything but an upside for Dems in the increased association between Rush and the Congressional Republicns. Or Republicans in general. The more their true colors show, the better for Deomcrats.

Steve, did you ever actually read Spencer Ackerman's story? Just checking/curious.

Example

How about Limbaugh's instance that Former Senator George "Maccaca" Allen (R-VA) was actually a good guy and a paragon of virtue.

And not only that, there was Rush's assertion that Sen. Macaca was a victim of unspeakable harm caused by the media for his innocent comment.

Bush Rimjob, the peckerwood junkie, needs to find his place in the new world order. I hear Gitmo will have vacancies in the near future. Couple of years in the sunny moist tropics will do wonders for his figure and complexion.

Gary: Steve, did you ever actually read Spencer Ackerman's story? Just checking/curious.

Of course:

Though Beauchamp is dressed in a blue sweater and the wrinkled khakis of a Capitol Hill staffer, he has the bearing of a soldier. He is solidly built and has a tense, alert physical presence, though his blue eyes look sunken and tired.

This is the exact point where I snort coffee/beer out of my nose (depending on the time of day) every time I read it.

"This is the exact point where I snort coffee/beer out of my nose (depending on the time of day) every time I read it."

Why?

I think Lisa upthread is a parody.
Seriously. She wrote that since most of the commenters are liberals, she would comment as a conservative (or words to that effect).

Then out come the Malkinisms. So I think she was doing a parody.

Wow wonkie. If true, I'm kind of an uptight maroon. Well, actually, that might be true anyway, but this would provide even more evidence.

"To answer your questions and since most of your comments seem to be from the liberal spectrum, I will answer as a conservative."

Your "So I think she was doing a parody" seems to leave out an intermediate step of explaining how you get from a to c.

Wonkie, I'm usually pretty sensitive to the odor of spoof, but I didn't notice it on Lisa. It is sometimes hard to tell nowadays, though.

Gary: Why?

Jeeze Gary. As an editor would you let that pass?

Though Beauchamp is dressed in a blue sweater and the wrinkled khakis of a Capitol Hill staffer, he has the bearing of a soldier. He is solidly built and has a tense, alert physical presence, though his blue eyes look sunken and tired.

…he has the bearing of a soldier. He is solidly built and has a tense, alert physical presence, though his blue eyes look sunken and tired

For soft porn maybe… Anyone who has ever spent any time in the military is going to snort some drink out of their nose at reading that.


BTW cleek – you may have thought that bet was a draw… No way. You might get mail from Soldier’s Angels, but I doubt it’s embarrassing to carry around.

I have to ride the elevator with folks who think I am a hard core conservative carrying something from the ACLU every 2 weeks.

I lose. ;)

"I have to ride the elevator with folks who think I am a hard core conservative carrying something from the ACLU every 2 weeks."

Hide it inside your porn.

Is it a good idea to poke him with a stick for no discernable gain?

No, it isn't. Fortunately, poking him with a stick has discernable gain. Did Limbaugh's listenership go up? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. That doesn't matter.

The people listening to Limbaugh weren't going to vote for Democrats anyway. They weren't going to be willing to compromise at all.* That more of them are tuning in doesn't change their behavior. It costs Obama nothing.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of people in the middle who would find a lot of what Limbaugh says offensive if it gets publicized well enough. If Democrats can force the spotlight on him, and get his real idiocy out front, it's going to alienate a lot of people from the Republicans, and undercut their power. These are the people about whose positions Obama should care, not the dittoheads.

Stapling the GOP to Rush Limbaugh is good. Attaching them with an arc welder is more visible, and even better.

Well parody might be the wrong word. I meant that her comments seem to me to be so much the stereotype of dumb rightwing nonsense, the stuff of Redstate comment threads, that maybe she was not sincere, just mimicking. Like a wind up toy, the Chatty Cathy Conservative. But as KC in DC notes, its hard to tell.

But in any case I definagtley do not see Eric as a maroon. Or even a pinko.

Re Rush, LOLCelebrities (from the makers of I Can Has Cheezburger) has a word http://punditkitchen.com/2009/01/27/political-pictures-listen-rush/>from Michelle to him: "LISTEN RUSH, I haven’t forgotten what you said about Chelsea. Say any c**p about my daughters and it will take a team of doctors to pry my foot out of your lying, cowardly, bloated Oxycontin loving a^^. [cleaned up from he original]"

(I kinda wish she would remind everyone what he said, and then the grown-up way-cute Chelsea could come out and tell him to kiss her you-know-where.)

People who claim to be small government conservatives and who also are frightened to be associated with the ACLU puzzle me.

But then usually the small government conservatives correct me and tell me that having a single government official that can order you jailed for life with no evidence and with no trial and no access to a lawyer is not big government it is just keeping us safe! Extremely safe! Straight jacket type safe! Smiley face! Notice how the government is so small and what not!

What the hell ever.

They live on a different planet than I do. Or we wish each other did.

I believe that the Great Horde of Mongols is a good model for a "small government keeping us safe". You know, the Mongol government under the Genghis Khan did not regulate too heavily. The trade was practicable and relativly free, and the governing nation was not taxed at all. This is an extremely small government, isn't it?

Of course, the Mongols became known as bloodthirsty invaders around the world, but that was only keeping the Mongols safe. Force-protection was a great thing even then: the Mongols used to fill the enemy moats with the living bodies of their prisoners. This saved numerous (Mongol) lives, which is the solemn duty of any military commander. :-)

I have to ride the elevator with folks who think I am a hard core conservative carrying something from the ACLU every 2 weeks.

Are we talking about the ACLU that once filed an amicus brief in support of Rush Limbaugh?

Can you think of a single "conservative" organization* that would do something like that for someone it considers a mortal enemy?

*"Conservative" in quotes because, despite what "hard-core conservatives" think, I don't believe the ACLU is particularly "liberal," unless "liberal" means "a fan of the US Constitution."

Unprovoked, in his meeting with Republicans on the hill: “You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,…”

Seriously, that's picking a fight? I call that common sense.

By Monday Limbaugh’s audience was up, waiting to hear his response.

They need to get a life.

Me neither. So? Is it a good idea to poke him with a stick for no discernable gain?

Personally, I would say that Obama publicly giving Limbaugh the back of his hand on a daily basis would be a positive public good.

If Obama began every day of his public life with the statement, "Limbaugh? Who gives a crap?", that alone would, in my mind, make his time in office a rousing success.

Limbaugh is a bully and a punk. Always has been, likely always will be. He appeals to resentful, pissed off people by telling them how right they are to be resentful and pissed off.

He has an audience of 20 million. As mentioned above, I bet any given porn video has better numbers. I bet Barney the purple dinosaur has better numbers.

There are over 300 million people in this country. I make Limbaugh out to be, if I may borrow an image from his military career, a boil on the rump of the nation.

If the House Republicans can't get through the day without kissing his butt on the public airwaves, that's too freaking bad for them. It must suck to have to be that venal, odious man's b*tch just to keep your job.

Fortunately, that's not a problem Obama has.

It must suck to have to be that venal, odious man's b*tch just to keep your job.

It occurs to me that, even though the term is used in a kind of gender-neutral way these days, that there is still something inescapably sexist about calling someone somebody else's b*tch.

So, if I may, I'd like to withdraw that.

For b*tch, please read "lap dog".

Thanks -

it was _so_ smart for the big O to pick a fight with Limbaugh right out of the gate. Give conservatives a rallying point.

More like: Cause even Republicans who might be taken seriously by the political majority in this country to rally around the ignorant, hate-spewing slob.

Thereby demonstrating the point even more clearly: these people have nothing to offer the country.

Seriously, OCSteve: did you think 'reconciliation' is about pretending that everyone is operating in good faith? Obama's peeling off as many people as possible from the dead-ender faction who openly want the country to suffer, and for the policies that big majorities voted for to fail.

You seem to be nostalgic for the days when you could listen to Limbaugh without any cognitive dissonance.

BTW cleek – you may have thought that bet was a draw… No way. You might get mail from Soldier’s Angels, but I doubt it’s embarrassing to carry around.

I have to ride the elevator with folks who think I am a hard core conservative carrying something from the ACLU every 2 weeks.

I lose. ;)

I'm sure I read what the bet was at the time, but can't remember off the top of my head, what was it?

Sometimes arguments are not about what the argument appears to be about. People engage in proxy wars, so to speak.

I can't prove it, but I think the agrument about Beuchamp is a proxy war for a different argument: who owns the troops, who gets to claim soldiers for their side.

For a long time it was an article of faith with the political right that they and they alone understood the soldier's experience. They and they alone could speak for soldiers and soldiers were, of course, expected to align themsleves with the right wing .

Hence the outrage at Kerry, Murtha, Hatchet, Fawcett, Clark...they betrayed the right by not being rightists themelsves. Also hense the embittered attacks on
those Iraq vets who came back and ran for office as Democrats or spoke out in some way against the war. The vet who blew the whistle on Abu Graib was run out of his home town. The vet who wrote an op ed about torture was subjecgted to weeks of hate mail and harassment. Murphy, while running for Congress, what attacked by his righhtwing loon oponenet who claimed that Murphy had falsified his record. Paul WInter got death threats. jay Fawcetts's office was firebombed. All polling data that showed disatisfaction with the war amongst soldiers was written off as biased.

Remember the uproar over Walter Reed? The initial rightwing reaction was outrage that Deomcrats would suggest that there was a problem. Then outrage that Democrats where speaking on behalf of soldiers. Only rightwingers can do that!

Remember the made-up stuff about how supposedly Iraq vets were being spat upon? The real disresepct for service came from the right toward Iraq vets who failed to toe the rightwing party line.

So I respectfully suggest, OCSteve, that there is a little of this in your reaction to Ackerman: a belief that no liberal could write accurately about a vet and a belief that any soldier who fails to speak of his or her experience in your terms is betraying their relationship with you.

So the argument isn't about Beachamp. It's a about which person, the liberal cleek or the (independent with rightwing inclinations sometimes? I'm not sure how to characterize you, Steve.) not-liberal anyway, gets to "understand" the soldier the best.

I've been thinking about this a little more. I read an article somewhere--no clue where, sorry, about a Iraq vet's visti home. At the block party, infront of family memeberws and neighbors, the vet said the suport-the-war stuff. Later over a drink with the vet's cousin and the report the vet was much more ambivalent. He was afraid to express any dobts in front of his family, however.

My cousin had the same experience when he came back from Viet Nam. my very much Republican American Legion WWII vet uncle didn't want to hear anything about Viet Nam that didn't reinforce his simplistic stop-the-commies misconception. He didn't wannt to hear what my cousin thought about his experiences.

When my cousin realized that he could not shhare either thhe truth as he percieved it or his feelings about the truth as he percieved it, he moved to the other side of town and refused to speak to my uncle about anything for over a decade.

I wonder how many Iraq vets are running into that? Feeling that they are not welcome to say what they really think or describe their experience as they perceive ti.

Of course it works both ways: a soldier who comes back annd says that everything they did was for the best and constructive and worthwhile will be heard with a certain skepticism by liberals, but the difference there is no evidence anywhere that such a reprot has been greeted with cries of"You liar!" or death threats or attacks on the characgter or credentials of the indivual.

"As an editor would you let that pass?"

It would depend entirely on what kind of publication, and their style, but for various types of magazines, sure, why not? It's the writer's impression, and I don't know what's striking you as unreasonable about it. It's descriptive, and your comparison to "soft porn" simply doesn't make any sense.

It's relevant to the Beauchamp episode that Sgt. Hatley, his commanding officer, who along with others outed Beauchamp and claimed that the incidents in his New Republic article were fabricated, had only a few months earlier murdered four Iraqi prisoners, something that was known at the time by at least seven members of Beauchamp's unit.

Hatley has now been charged with murder in the killing of the four Iraqis and faces additional charges of murder for a separate incident in January 2007.

But it's a much more relevant and serious credibility problem for Beauchamp that Spencer Ackerman's description of him isn't sufficiently terse and manly for OCSteve.

Can I just add - as a bit of a non-sequitur - that I'm a little shocked that no ObWinger has stepped forward to claim their T-Shirt for identifying the fairly blatant song reference in the title to the post.

Sloppy, people. Real sloppy.

Smiths.

I'm allergic to Morrissey. His whine clashes with all of my cheese.

Wonkie is onto something in her post above.

Continuing claims by conservatives of sole ownership over what is and isn't acceptable for veterans and active duty military to say might have something to do with the suicide rate.

The fundamental cause, as russell said in the thread on that topic, is repeated deployments to wars of occupation in which U.S. military actions keep on killing civilians (entirely foreseeably even if unintentionally). Further psychological stress is created when troops become aware of and complicit in the abuse and murder of prisoners or civilians.

The comforting assumption that such incidents are limited to the ones for which prosecutions occur is undercut by the long delays and roundabout way in which most of these have come to light.

I prefer music that makes me feel nine feet tall when I'm four foot five.

Eric: You have T-Shirts?

What's next?

Mugs?

There's no reason there couldn't be kitty tee shirts and mugs.

Not a bad idea Mssr. Farber.

@Nell @01:20.

Bad link. I assume you meant this:
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002518.html

Thanks for alerting me, bayesian.

No, actually, the link was intended to be one to my own blog post on the subject, recently updated.

I also like Gary's idea.

Back on the main topic of the thread:

If OCSteve or anyone else still doesn't get the point of Obama "rallying" Republicans around Limbaugh, this illustrates the tactic put to work:

Americans United for Change ... has launched a 60-second radio spot against John Ensign of Nevada, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

The commercial notes that Limbaugh has declared that he hopes Obama fails, and it asks whether these senators will side with the radio loudmouth or with Obama.

Transcript of the ad and a link to audio at the link above.

I am with OCSteve on the necessity of editing out that descriptive from the Beauchamp article. It is so extremly cliche ridden as to be entered into the "It was a dark and stormy night" contest. Not softporn material though imo. Tearjerker/Dime novel looks more like it.

As part of a tiny but growing liberal minority I live in Gingrey Country. I tried to encourage Dr. Gingrey the morning after he pushed back (even before he backpedaled) but it was a waste of time. His staff apparently had such an avalanche of protests they didn't have time to read my message.

Never underestimate the power of deeply embedded ignorance in the electorate.

@Hartmut: Fine. It's 'dark and stormy night' writing, which is relevant to what? The question to OCSteve was really about whether Ackerman's article made an difference in his comfort with all the smears against Beauchamp, which he dodged by mocking an irrelevant passage.

And was obliged in his derailing by almost every commenter who responded. I am still disgusted with the whole right-wing culture-war screeching in that incident to begin with, and disappointed that he is unwilling both to own up to his part in that and to acknowledge seriously unpleasant facts that put Beauchamp's writing and actions in context.

The only relevance there is to the point of that literary slip of taste is (imo) that it unnecessarily opens a flank. The right would attack anyway even if Beauchamp had singlehandedly deafeated the whole of the Iraqi army and raised all American war dead of the 20th century but a phony looking part makes the defence more difficult exactly because the other side uses the same phony style all the time. I at least tend to react in a Pawlovian way on cues like that. It weakens the message and should therefore be avoided.
I also should avoid derailing the thread again :-(

"@Hartmut: Fine. It's 'dark and stormy night' writing,"

No, it's not. 'It's a dark and stormy night" is bad because it starts off with the weather, rather than getting you into the characters or plot; it's bad because it's a cliche, and as a starting line, doesn't grab you; and it's bad because it's a synecdoche for the full florid run-on redundant sentence by Edward Bulwer-Lytton: "It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

Two sentences of description of a person, in a piece about that person, don't have those problems. The worse that could be said is that Ackerman was playing a little towards stereotypical, or cliche, descriptions of a soldier, and how that speaks to whether Beauchamp was a "phony soldier," or his account "fake," I have no idea.

I am aware of the contest, which goes beyond the "worst opening sentence" these days, although it is still the first category.
I think of it as a synonym for cliche-cramming, unintended hilarity through certain choice of words etc.
As for the phoniness, RW "heroes"* tend to be described that way so consistently that its use has the effect on me to associate anyone introduced that way with phoniness (admittedly that is a general US vice not restricted to the RW). That the Beauchamp story was definitely not RW hackwork (due to content) is evident but the imo false tone has a (again imo) weakening effect (a minor one**).
The swoonery over Obama made me at first highly sceptical about him but*** that wore off after seeing Teh Man in action for some time.
(OT: I think there actually exists a clicherizer program that can turn normal text into yellow journalism/swoonery ;-) )

*over here that is more the domain of the extreme left.
**No Hinderaker material
***now I am using the cliche of "but..."

We return now to the topic of Limbaaaaaugh (without dancing)

Correction (me bad), the Bulwer-Lytton contest is still first sentences only but there are analogue bad writing contests that are topic centered.

Now let's return to Rush and the necessity to canvas for the Limbaugh/Palin ticket in 2012 (and my secret wish that Rachel Maddow will run for president after Obama's time)

Nell: The question to OCSteve was really about whether Ackerman's article made an difference in his comfort with all the smears against Beauchamp, which he dodged by mocking an irrelevant passage.

And would have dodged that point somehow. When an excuse is wanted to dodge a personally-embarrassing point, an excuse can always be found.

I wonder which right-wing blogger pointed out that particular dodge to OCSteve by mocking that passage and letting him know that it was okay to avoid being ashamed at the hatchet-job on a serving soldier by the right - by pointing to one paragraph by a journalist about Beauchamp and laughing loudly? It's an effective high school technique to derail class discussion - pretend to be too overcome with mirth to talk - but it's not OCSteve's usual style. I would guess he must be very deeply ashamed of what was done to Beauchamp by his side, if he's engaging in such teenage-style disruptions of discussion.

Well fwit my take is a little different.

I thought Ackerman's prose was a bit over the top and the over the toppishness gave OCSteve and others the chance to dismess Ackerman as a phoney which is the rightwing narrative: lefties can't really care about soldiers or support soldiers or know anythng about soldiers because soldiers are the property of the right. So the "phoniness" is Ackerman's and by extention the "phoniness" of every liberral or progressive who doesn't behave like the soldier-hater the right wants to believe we are.

But it does all seem like a dodge to avoid dealing with Beauchamp mhimslef or the nasty way rightwingers have treated soldiers in general for the crime of not being rightwingers.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast