Feb
5
Obama’s Mistakes
Filed Under American Politics | 5 Comments
I think he’s made a number of them in his first year and I might turn this into a series of posts, but for now, I want to focus on one mistake from his first year in office that lends itself easily to hindsight.
Do you remember from this blog last year the discussions about Obama’s declared war on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Within his first week in office, Obama was warning Republicans that they can’t “listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done”. Rahm Emanuel called Limbaugh “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party”. And then there was Fox News. The White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn had this to say about Fox in October last year:
“Fox News often operates either as the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party,” she said. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is … We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent.”
The war between Fox and the White House became the narrative for a week or so.
The Obama administration made a clear attempt to define conservatism as an extremist force, as exemplified by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. This of course is a view not unique to the Obama administration. From them to Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats, to liberal pundits and gobshites like Olbermann and Matthews and on to the liberal commentators at blogs like this one (we remember the rather one track commentary of Israel, Morgan and Simon around this time), the need to define conservatives as “wingnuts” is an endemic one.
And as events have transpired, it has been shown to be a wasted effort. Clearly, Obama wanted to separate the conservative base from the middling American voter. Define conservatives as extreme, and watch the non-conservative voter distance them-self from conservatism and push them into the welcoming Democratic Party. Well wasn’t that a damp squib? Instead what we’ve seen is Fox become the most trusted news network, the tea-partiers in poll after poll being shown to be more likely to be well thought of than not, moderate Republicans like Scott Brown and Mark Kirk embracing more conservative positions than they would normally and still gaining votes and a base as energised as they’ve been in the last decade.
As a political tactic, it failed miserably, and may well have back-fired. From the first week of his Presidency, the American voter, who had been promised a new era of post-partisanship, was suddenly witnessing a pre-emptive partisan strike. I get the feeling Obama has learnt from this mistake, there is less of the “I won” rhetoric. But there is one thing I am certain of; his party certainly haven’t learnt that lesson and nor has the base.
Jan
21
An Open Letter To Shockwaver
Filed Under Uncategorized | 4 Comments
Dear Shockwaver,
I only choose to single you out on this because of our discussion regarding Glenn Beck’s appropriateness as a voice of the right.
During Scott Brown’s acceptance speech, he made the reference to his daughters being “available”. It was clearly an off the cuff remark by a man clearly excited by his win, clearly proud of his daughters and their prominent role in the campaign and clearly wanting to continue to project his image of being “of the people”. Perhaps in the cold light of day it was a statement he might regret but I think any serious person would acknowledge that it was a statement born of the moment and not worth considering further.
Not Glenn Beck it seems. Here’s what he had to say about Brown’s “available” comment:
“I want a chastity belt on this man,” he said, while his producer tried to justify Brown’s comments. “I want his every move watched in Washington. I don’t trust this guy…This one could end with a dead intern. I’m just saying, it could end with a dead intern.”
So my question to you is this. Do we really want to be spending our time defending Glenn Beck when he makes such idiotic statements like this? What do we as conservatives get out of defending him? Doesn’t doing so make us look just as stupid as him?
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have embarrassed themselves in the past week with their statements. If conservatives are to be taken seriously, it’s about time they started acknowledging that fact and holding Limbaugh and Beck accountable for their very bad taste remarks.
Jan
14
Rush Limbaugh Is A Half-Wit.
Filed Under American Politics | 16 Comments
Here’s what’s happening in Haiti:
Top-end estimates on immediate deaths from the earthquake are as high as 500,000. Granted, these estimates aren’t scientific and we may never know the true death toll as bodies will need to be buried before any coordinated counting can occur. When bandying about perspective death tolls, however, what too many reports omit is their relative size to the Haitian population, which is around 9 million. Accordingly, if the 500,000 death toll is accurate, more than 5 percent of the country died. In addition, a huge proportion of children will become orphans, a situation that will affect generations.
If ever there was a time for people’s compassion. Not for Rush. For him it’s political point-scoring time:
I don’t know if Rush is religious, I assume so, but he doesn’t come near to understanding the meaning of the word compassion.
Here’s the thing Rush. Haiti is only a few hundred miles from the US. It’s airport is closed off so any aid will have to come by helicopter or by sea, thus requiring a close staging post. America not only has the infrastructure to help Haiti now, but can co-ordinate the relief effort because of it’s proximity. How Rush can criticise Obama for responding immediately, when an immediate response potentially could save tens of thousands of lives is beyond me.
What a sorry excuse for a human being.
Oct
19
Giving Lie To The Theory That The Republicans Are Beholden To Wingnuts
Filed Under American Politics | 57 Comments
Here’s a question for you, particularly those that think Rush Limbaugh is the de facto head of the Republican Party. Which one of the below three would Rush Limbaugh be most likely to support in a 2012 primary and be most sympathetic towards:
A) Sarah Palin
B) Mike Huckabee
C) Mitt Romney
Go to the top of the class if you answered A.
A latest rasmussen poll gives lie to the idea that the Limbaugh way is also the GOP way. They polled Republican voters, asking them who they would support in a Huckabee/Palin match up and in a Romney/Palin match up. In both cases, Palin gets trounced.
Mike Huckabee – 55%
Sarah Palin – 35%
A twenty point losing margin
———————————–
Mitt Romney – 52%
Sarah Palin – 37%
A 15 point losing margin.
The only religious demographic that Palin wins is with evangelicals against Romney. She loses to him with all other faiths. Huckabee beats Palin with all faiths including evangelicals.
Facts are so bothersome. They certainly don’t bear out the fact that the Republican party are the party of Limbaugh and Palin (at least for now).
Oct
15
Reaping The Seeds You Sow Yourself
Filed Under American Politics | 20 Comments
By Israel
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need
“
I didn’t know if l wanted to comment on Limbaugh’s rejection by some players, owners and Commissioner of the NFL as a minority owner of the St Louis Rams (although the above lyrics were swimming through my head since l heard about it) until Shockwavers incredibly weak strawman argument about Stacy Ferguson of the Black Eyed Peas.
The majority of the NFL owners are billionaires, people who have an ideological affinity with Limbaugh, so what does the fact that someone was so forthcoming and open about the decision to refuse Limbaugh say about him?
Conservatives like Shockwaver would love to pin it all on the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, but that ignores the outrage his previous comments, and remember these are Limbaugh’s own words, about black players in the NFL have caused leading to opposition from players via their union and also by the players directly to speak out against it. Even the sportswriters have spoken out against it.
Mike Freeman’s commentary on October 7th sums up the prevailing view of most of those who follow and report on the NFL and attempting to ignore his comments:
Media types like me would love for Limbaugh to own an NFL team because it would provide an unending source of material.
Limbaugh is a pungent bowl of stark-raving bigoted lunacy. He would be a dream to cover. It would be better than making love to Halle Berry.
But for the NFL, Limbaugh as an owner would be as comfortable as a colonoscopy with a periscope. It would be one of the great nightmares for the sport.
The league has made significant strides in putting its horrid racial past behind it. The NFL isn’t perfect on the issues of ethnicity, but it tries.
Allowing Limbaugh, who plays the song parody Barack the Magic Negro on his radio show, a seat at the owner’s table would instantly undermine everything the NFL has worked decades to accomplish.
And again, this whole thing is very possible.
Limbaugh is a huge sports fan and football follower, which is why ESPN hired him in the first place before he torched the place one day.
This, of course was Limbaugh’s infamous comment about black Quarterback Donovan McNabb:
“Sorry to say this, I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go,” Limbaugh said. “I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”
There are others as well with statements from players such as Mathias Kiwanuka:
“All I know is from the last comment I heard, he said in (President) Obama’s America, white kids are getting beat up on the bus while black kids are chanting ‘right on,’” Kiwanuka told The Daily News. “I mean, I don’t want anything to do with a team that he has any part of. He can do whatever he wants, it is a free country. But if it goes through, I can tell you where I am not going to play.”
“I am not going to draw a conclusion from a person off of one comment, but when it is time after time after time and there’s a consistent pattern of disrespect and just a complete misunderstanding of an entire culture that I am a part of, I can’t respect him as a man.”
Kiwanuka cringes at the idea of Limbaugh becoming an NFL owner. “They are flat-out racist,” Kiwanuka said of many of Limbaugh’s statements. “He jumps on Obama and he jumps on other people for being racist. But a lot of the comments that he said, I feel like they have no place in journalism. It is just an opinion show that should be only be taken for shock value. I liken it to ‘South Park’ when I am listening to him.”
“I love Spags and would play for him in a heartbeat, but under that situation … obviously trades you have no control over, but if it was a free-agent thing, I wouldn’t care if I only had one offer on the table, I would rather stay a free agent.”
Strong words, but echoed around the NFL.
People like Limbaugh don’t seem to acknowledge that there are those of us out there with functioning braincells and memories who remember the offensive things he says.
How did the man who said:
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.”
and:
The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.
And:
Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?
Really get the impression that he would be welcomed with open arms by people he has had no problem insulting for years?
Yesterday Cabbie said that Limbaugh is really doing “politically incorrect comedy”.
Sorry but to me and millions of others (which now incorporates some of the players, owners and writers of American Football) Limbaugh is a bigot and a racist who has the awareness and sensitivity of a box of rocks if he didn’t think that he would have been opposed in what he wanted to do.
I leave the last word to Dave Zirin sportswriter for “The Nation” who had the dubious honour of being called a “scumbag” along with Bryan Burwell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Drew Sharp of the Detroit Free Press for calling out his hate filled screed:
Some are surprised that ownership isn’t welcoming Limbaugh with a passionate embrace because most owners are to the right of Attila the Hun. They are billionaires who have feasted at the public trough of corporate welfare while basking in tax breaks for the rich. In other words, they constitute Limbaugh’s base. But his membership in this exclusive fraternity of billionaires would violate the first rule of ownership: protect the bottom line.
The inconvenient truth is that no matter how much he rants and raves, no matter how often he calls columnists like Burwell, Sharp and me “state-run-media scum,” it’s the commissioner and the owners who believe that his history of ugly vitriol would be just too harmful to the NFL brand. You reap what you sow, and Rush Limbaugh has reaped a whirlwind.
Sep
7
William Buckley editorialising about the John Birch Society:
It was precisely my desire to strengthen the ranks of conservatism that led me to publish the editoria. Our movement has got to govern. It has got to expand by bringing into our ranks those people who are, at the moment, on our immediate Left – the moderate, wishy-washy conservatives; the Nixonites… I am talking… about 20 to 30 million people… If they are being asked to join a movement whose leadership believes the drivel of [the Birch Society leadership], they will pass by crackpot alley, and will not pause until they feel the warm embrace of those way over on the other side, the Liberals.”
I have a real problem with conservatives dismissing RINO’s and moderates. What is the point in being a conservative if you are not able to enact a conservative agenda? And to do that requires political power, and political power requires more votes than the fundamentalist conservatives can put together.
Will this mean watering down a conservative agenda? Possibly, but not restrictively so. What it means is finding a consensual conservatism that appeals to conservatives of different hues (and yes, RINO’s can be conservative too). Conservatism is not the didactic and doctrinal philosophy of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, it is in it’s original form, a moderate and respectful political philosophy. One that acknowledges peoples differences, but puts its emphasis on the things that unite us, like church, nation and community). It’s a philosophy that understands the need for change, but one within the framework of our past experiences. At it’s very core, is the knowledge that we are all fallible, so how can we be absolutely certain of a single truth?
If Ronald Reagan were to witness some of the antics of some on the right today, he would be turning in his grave.
And to that end, I thoroughly support Jon Henke’s campaign at The Next Right to get conservatives and the Republican Party to distance themselves from the ‘birthers’ at World Net Daily.
And to their credit, that’s exactly what CPAC, the largest conservative PAC in America have done:
Let’s start with good news: WorldNetDaily will not be at CPAC next year. I exchanged emails with the CPAC organizer earlier today and she told me this:
[WorldNetDaily founder Joseph] Farah asked if he could speak on the issue (birther movement), but that isn’t something we’re interested in.
Let’s hope more important conservatives do the same. Over to you Rush.
And before anyone calls me “moderate cabbie” again, they had better have done some reading on the grandfather of conservatism, Edmund Burke 
Update:
You really should read this brilliant essay by Patrick Ruffini, also at The New Majority. He’s talking a lot of sense, although I disagree with his conclusion about conservative elites. Having said that, there is certainly a need for the rediscovery of conservative intellectualism. conservatives seem to have lost sight of their first principles. The best quote from the piece:
The automatic problem that arises when someone who is not a William F. Buckley (and none of us here pretend to be) is that you’re instantly tagged a RINO for calling out something that is objectively and demonstrably false. The space between fact and fiction is confused as a litmus test between right and left. But what if the WNDers are not the true conservatives in this argument? What if the actual test of conservatism was not how fervently you oppose Obama, or where you went to school, or where you pray, but how firmly your conservatism is rooted in First Principles and not personalities or conspiracy?
Sep
6
Van Jones Has Resigned
Filed Under American Politics | 104 Comments
That was inevitable. There was no way he was going to be able to keep his job with Obama’s big healthcare speech due up on Wednesday. Obama will need all the news cycles he can get to turn around the healthcare debate. Van Jones became too much of a distraction.
But what does his resignation say about the further right? These have been endlessly dismissed as irrelevant by the left and the media. They have been derided for being led by Limbaugh, Palin and Beck, pejoratively dismissed as a rump of a base, tea-baggers, birthers and wingnuts. The contempt has come from the left, the media and more importantly, the moderate right.
But, the thing is, these tea-party activists and ‘wingnuts’ are getting wins. It’s highly unlikely that Van Jones would have been exposed as a truther, without the one-man war waged by Glenn Beck. End of life consultations would still be in the Health Care bill if Sarah Palin hadn’t gone after “death panels”. Barack Obama was supposed to be impregnable. A fairly large electoral win and big congressional majorities were his licence to carry out his chosen agenda with little risk of serious opposition.
And this is where the moderate right should hang their heads in shame. They believed that hype. Rather than focus on defeating Obama’s agenda, they proposed accommodation whilst focusing their energies on reforming their own. Whether it is politicians like Olympia Snowe or commentators like David Frum, these accommodationists would have allowed Obama an unchallenged eight years to radically transform America into a country where unions and special interests have the power and the federal government pervasively encroaches on every aspect of an individuals life.
Some of the tactics employed by the further right may be distasteful and confrontational, maybe they are focused on unnecessary aspects of Obama’s life, like his place of birth, but at least they didn’t just give up. They fought for what they believe in, and have been rewarded with the bursting of the Obama bubble. Obama is beatable now, and it is the wingnuts that did it.
Jul
28
I Agree With Ann Coulter (in part)
Filed Under American Politics | 12 Comments
By Israel
I’m looking at the headline and wondering if I’ve lost my mind. The statement l have typed is not something that l thought would pass my lips on any subject let alone the one concerned.
The closest thing l can think of to what l have written is me cheering a Michael Owen goal on Sunday for United (the US equivalent would be Kobe Bryant free trading to the Celtics, being handed the number 33 shirt, and scoring with a last second three pointer to win the game). In other words something pretty good but leaves me feeling a bit mucky.
So what was the comment that Ann Coulter said which has had me actually nodding in agreement instead of my usual response to her of throwing things at the screen in the vain hope that somehow the kinetic energy would transfer itself in any way possible to smack her on the back of the head?
Well, in the words of the poster Federalist Patriot on Free Republic (no, l WILL NOT link to them, you can go read it yourself if you wish) Ann has “gone over to the dark side” by calling the birthers “a few cranks”.
Of course the freepers ignored the bit before where she tries to put the blame squarely on liberals ( the transcript of her entire comment reads “So for CNN or MSNBC, or you Geraldo, the liberal on Fox, to be bringing this out as if it’s an issue, you know, it’s just a few cranks out there. It’s like when networks bring on the three remaining Klanners in America, on TV.”)
The funny thing is that while she mentions CNN, MSNBC and Geraldo indivually she manages to leave out one of the biggest pusher’s of the birth certificate falsehood, the de facto leader of the Republican party Boss Limbaugh, lumping him in with the “few cranks”!! We all know how Rush doesn’t like to be seen as just one of the pack and it will be interesting to see what his response will be to this bracketing of him by Coulter.
The response of some freepers has been the obvious one, completely dismissing Coulter and all she has said and done in the past because of this one comment, while others are warning against starting yet another circular firing squad.
Personally i’m watching with some grim delight as the lunatic fringe do their best to wreck whatever credibility republicans have by giving those in Congress a stark choice, agree with them and be seen as a loon by people who actually have common sense or refute what they say and face the howling minions just like Representative Mike Castle did with this woman who is so far gone she managedto get herself banned from right wing radio.
Those right wing politicos and media types know what they are doing and it’s pretty craven. Allowing this to fester for so long may bring some of the “cranks” (as acknowledged by Coulter) to their side but the cowardly act of pretending confusion on this issue from the people who sought to amend the constitution to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for president in 2012 should be one to give a lot of others pause for thought. There are a lot of things that those who oppose President Obama do not like about his policies and that however much people disagree with them is fair game, but this “birther” stuff is pure bunk fuelled by people who can never accept the fact that the President of the United States is African American, and led by an anti semite and a dentist with an uncredited online law degree.
These are the people these representatives are siding with. If it didn’t have the ability to be destructive it would be funny as in a sensible media world these kooks would be one step below Alex Jones and rolling on the floor with 9/11 truthers scrabbling for the last pieces of tinfoil instead of having their associated meltdowns and brainfarted egos stoked by the likes of Lou Dobbs.
So Ann Coulter is partially right. These people are cranks. The problem (for the right) is that they are becoming a louder voice voice in the party and no-one has the balls to stop them.
Now having typed that in twice l feel really mucky. I’m off for a very stiff drink to wash the bad taste from my mouth.
Addition By Conservative Cabbie
For purposes of comparison
Here is an actual Hawaiian birth certificate:
And here is the version Barack Obama released:
Jun
15
By Israel
Okay, full disclosure, I’m no fan of Sarah Palin. The idea of her being Vice President woke me up more than once in a cold sweat before November 5th, and the times she had lied (in my personal view) on the campaign trail about the bridge to nowhere, the governor’s jet and other things just left me cold to her. I thought her “gosh darn” folksiness (is that a word?) was contrived and her statements on the trail were more than a little inflammatory.
The spat this week with David Letterman though did bring back a side to her and some of her supporters which l had actually forgotten until Cabbie’s comments on it.
Okay, first things first.
Letterman apologised for going over the top. Some may not have liked the apology, the Palin’s obviously didn’t, but this guy is a seasoned professional with over 30 years in the entertainment industry taking shots at everyone. Palin was at the Yankee game with her daughter.
Did Letterman name the daughter?
No.
Did he know which daughter was with her?
No.
He (or his writers) SHOULD HAVE DONE. But they didn’t.
So here’s the thing:
In the first 30 seconds of Letterman’s comments about the joke he actually names Sarah Palin and her daughter BRISTOL. He uses her name. He reads out the statements of both the Palins and agrees with them. At five minutes in he states again that the jokes were NOT about her 14 year old daughter. Some of what he did in the segment was self deprecating. At the start he says, “I just stepped into traffic the other day”, and when he said “if your thinking about getting your own talk show” he meant it as a warning of the pitfalls you could have when it doesn’t go right.
So what is the problem with the continued response of Palin, and the outrage expressed by the poster? Well it’s that it goes directly to the heart of the echo chamber of the right wing. As the poster himself says:
How is a 14 year old fair game in the rough and tumble of the political world? For that matter, how is an 18 year old who has had to go through the trauma of an unintended pregnancy a legitimate political target? I’m well aware that Rush Limbaugh called Chelsea Clinton “the White House Dog”, and that should also be condemned. But the Letterman apologists like Arianna Huffington and one or two on this blog are as culpable as Rush Limbaugh. Trying to blame Sarah Palin for Letterman’s comment is ridiculous and outrageous. This tabloid fodder level of political debate distracts from real issues, debases politics and it is impossible to take someone like Arianna Huffington seriously after an incident like this. She is as useless as Limbaugh, Hannity or O’Reilly.
It’s agreed by most that a 14 year old is not fair game in the political world. I would say that was true of those on the left. Those on the right can ask Tucker Eskew or Rush Limbaugh. Unlike political operative Eskew, or de facto head of the republican party and it’s top rated conservative media commentator Limbaugh, Letterman is the host of a late night entertainment talkshow, and has been for decades. He may comment on the politics of the day and have politicians on but can it REALLY be said that he is part of the political framework in the US? While it was condemned by some on the right in 1993 do you really think that there would be the same level of outrage today by conservatives if Limbaugh had made a similar comment? Al Franken pointed out this exchange he had with Hannity over the Limbaugh/Chelsea Clinton comment, an excuse that l have read posted by many defenders of Limbaugh since then. Trying to compare Arianna Huffington and others to that is in no way similar. Letterman isn’t Andrew Dice Clay or Doug Stanhope and trying to make him out to be at their level of comedy, or insinuating that Letterman is some sort of paedophile sits wrong with a lot of people which is why they are defending him.
For that matter, how is an 18 year old who has had to go through the trauma of an unintended pregnancy a legitimate political target?
The idea of sending Bristol Palin out as an advocate against teen pregnancy was a great one, but the problem is two fold in my opinion.
Just like it’s a great idea to have a recovering alcoholic or drug addict being a spokesperson for groups against alcohol and drug abuse, the problem is not everyone is going to listen. The unmarried teen daughter of the former republican Vice Presidential candidate (whose mother was an advocate for abstinence only education when running for election in 2006 to get support from the base) who got pregnant at 17 WILL raise eyebrows and generate blowback when she is part of a panel at a townhall meeting on Teen Pregnancy. Especially when she is on record as saying that abstinence only education is “unrealistic”. It also provides fodder for those on the opposite side who for years have watched and listened while right wingers have anointed themselves as “the party of family values”, while events and actions by politicians and commentators show just how much of that statement is crap.
What is amazing is the insistence of the echo chamber that if the Obama’s had an underage teen daughter impregnated by a young man who on his facebook page called himself a “thug” or a “gangster” (Levi Johnson called himself a “Redneck who didn’t give a fuck”) they would have been completely off limits during the campaign season. Personally l call bullshit to that idea. As a defence for my view l offer exhibits (a) Chelsea Clinton, and especially (b) Bridget McCain.
Trying to blame Sarah Palin for Letterman’s comment is ridiculous and outrageous. This tabloid fodder level of political debate distracts from real issues, debases politics and it is impossible to take someone like Arianna Huffington seriously after an incident like this. She is as useless as Limbaugh, Hannity or O’Reilly.
Jun
6
Ditto…Sort of.
Filed Under American Politics | 24 Comments
Here’s a video to send our friends from the left into fits. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh together.
I have debated Rush Limbaugh with Shockwaver in another thread. I believe that Limbaugh has too much power in the conservative movement. However, it’s easy to see why he does from this video. He is excellent at breaking down arguments into their most basic forms and pointing out their inconsistencies.
Responding to a Hannity question about Obama’s belief that America should not be imposing it’s values on others, Limbaugh points out the duplicity of Obama’s position.
Limbaugh: He says (Obama). America. We can’t impose our values…What are our values? Freedom, democracy. He says those are universal….Imposing values? “Hey Mr Netanyahu, stop doing your settlements, stop defending yourself”. Who’s imposing what on whom? It’s Obama imposing his view of things around the world.
Limbaugh has the knack of seeing to the heart of the matter. Now if he could just drop the “it’s frightning” type rhetoric that he uses at the end of this video, I’d have a lot more time for his punditry. Americans don’t want to be scared and shocked into becoming conservative, they want hope and Limbaugh doesn’t give them that. Reagan did, and that is why Reagan should be the mould from which the conservatives of the future are created.