I was apprehensive at first, considering the title, but Jeffrey Lord hit the nail on the head.
His column at The American Spectator, is a great read and I am glad I clicked on it despite the title.
But like Ted Kennedy, Sarah Palin has a gift. An ability to make Americans focus on the issue of the day — and likewise the head of the table ability to lead the country in a specific direction. In fact, she just did it on health care, making her sentiments plain with a Kennedy-style “Robert Bork’s America” pronouncement. No other losing vice-presidential candidate in American history has drawn this kind of attention — whether the passionate applause or the enraged disdain — as Sarah Palin.
“Did you hear what Sarah Palin said today?”
In reference to your recent article in the Washington Post, Demon Denim, I have to set you straight. I took particular notice of your words, “Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy’s catechism of leveling–thou shalt not dress better than society’s most slovenly.”
George, have you ever worked in a field? Have you burned or welded steel? Climbed a pole? Changed a tire? Fixed the brakes or anything else on any type of vehicle? Worked with hazardous materials? Worked in the woods, cutting trees or brush? Sown a garden? Worked with cattle or horses or dairy cows or any livestock at all? Built a shed, a pole barn, a garage, a house, a mansion? Painted walls, ceilings or anything?
All I own is jeans because of the wear they will get, and the economical price. It’s not that I don’t care about my appearance, it is that I am conservative, practical, no-nonsense.
You are, I think, trying to call attention to people who wear jeans, but can obviously afford to dress better. Instead you insulted a huge amount of us hard working rednecks.
Slovenly? Thanks George. Now at least I know where you’re coming from.
|From Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, March 10,2009,
Rush: The people who listen to this program regularly have knowledge about me and this program. One of the things they know is that I love this country. Another thing they know is that I love people. All conservatives love people and we are colorblind. We don’t look out over a group of people and say, “Ooh, there’s a group of women sitting over there, and there’s a group of blacks, there’s some Hispanics, ooh, there’s some Walmart voters, ooh, there’s some people who think the era of Reagan is over.”
We love the country, we love people, and are in awe of the founding of this country and its blessings by God and the recognition in our founding documents that we were all created with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. We conservatives see all three of those things under assault. We in this audience want the best for every American. We want everyone to succeed. We do not want our country to fail, and we do not want individual citizens to fail. Against that knowledge, understanding, and given, here we have an administration which is implementing policies that are anathema to the founding of the country, in our view, my view. We have an administration implementing policies that are destructive to the way this country was founded, they are destructive to the opportunities for happiness and prosperity that this country has provided for 230 years, and we’re alarmed by it. I see that a lot of other people are alarmed by it, too, but they don’t have the guts to say so per se because they are afraid of having happen to them what has been happening to me with the White House and the media trying to destroy them or ruin their reputations or what have you.
I got to thinking about this. The Federalist Papers and the constitutional convention debates are rife with arguments about the separation of powers. Now, stick with me on this, because this is a fundamental point to try to explain, especially to those of you who are new to the program, what it is that guides me. The whole theory of the separation of powers, meaning legislative branch, judicial branch, executive branch, was ingeniously based on human nature. Our Founding Fathers had studied history, and they knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we divide power. We divide power between the states and the federal government. We divide power within the federal government. And we further divide power among three separate branches of government. We give each branch a different set of powers and incentives to protect their own prerogatives so they can keep an eye on each other. These are called checks and balances. And the liberals love talking about checks and balances very much.
|The underlying assumption of this whole system is that the country functions better if everyone is of a skeptical bent of mind. That’s what keeps the next guy honest. The whole reason that we have divided government instead of a king is that the issue is not about one government official succeeding. This country was not founded on the principle that the president is a king and above all the king must succeed. In fact, the system is designed to ensure that the president fails when he is wrong. That’s the whole purpose of checks and balances. The whole purpose of dividing power, is to ensure the president fails when he’s wrong. The Framers wanted the country to succeed, just as I do. If they wanted the president to succeed, they would not have saddled him with Congress, they wouldn’t have saddled him with the courts, they wouldn’t have saddled him with the free press, and they wouldn’t have made him face reelection every four years. They would have made him a king who no one could oppose.
If our nation was all about a single individual succeeding simply because that individual must succeed regardless, we wouldn’t have the form of government that we do. Now, conflating the president and the country — and by that I mean, assuming that the president is always the country, assuming that the president always has the country’s best interests at heart, such as the founders did, turns a functioning democracy into a robotic cult. I fear that that’s what we have right now. We have a cult of fear and celebrity, robotic cult, that is epitomized in Warren Buffett, it’s epitomized by Jack Welch, it’s epitomized by Barton Biggs and Jim Cramer and anybody else who knows what they see is devastatingly wrong, is horribly wrong, but because there is a fear to oppose because the assumption is that Obama is the country, that Obama equals the best interests of the country simply because he’s Obama, that’s what gives you a cult. The worst part of it is that many of these people who are making hay over this Limbaugh-wants-Obama-to-fail garbage know full well, ladies and gentlemen, that what I just told you is the case.
This is not an honest debate going on here, as we have demonstrated in the first hour of the program with the Warren Buffett sound bites and the Barton Biggs sound bites and the Jim Cramer sound bites. It’s not an honest debate. What’s happening here is the most cynical kind of down and dirty politics by people who not only wanted George W. Bush to fail, but worked night and day to ensure that he failed. I say to you again, if the Founders wanted a situation where the government was about one official succeeding, then George Washington would have accepted the role he was he offered as king. But we have separation of powers. We have division of powers. All of this is designed to ensure that a president fails when he is wrong. The Framers wanted the country to succeed. Let me add to this, Byron York today writing at the DCExaminer.com: “‘Why The Founding Fathers Would Want Obama’s Plans to Fail’ — James Madison was not specifically contemplating Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, when he wrote Federalist No. 63. But reading the document — one of the seminal arguments in favor of adopting the US Constitution — it’s clear Madison knew their type. And he knew they would come along again and again in American history, if Americans were lucky enough to have a long history. Obama and Pelosi, along with their most ardent supporters, are the types to see a crisis, like our current economic mess, as a ‘great opportunity,’ as the president put it last Saturday. They are the types, after a long period out of power, to attempt to use that ‘great opportunity’ to push through far-reaching changes in national policy that had only a tangential connection, if at all, to the crisis at hand. And they are the types the Founding Fathers wanted to stop.
“In the Federalist Papers, written 221 years ago, Madison addressed the need for a Senate to accompany the more populist House of Representatives. An upper body, he wrote, ‘may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.’ For the times when a political leader would attempt to capitalize on those errors and delusions, the Founders prescribed the Senate, with its members elected to terms three times the length of those in the House, originally chosen not by the people but by the state legislatures. From Federalist 63: ‘There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?'”
Let me translate this for you. There are going to be times demagogues are going to come along, there are going to be times that people who are power hungry, who are going to take advantage of a crisis, to say they’ve got all the solutions, and they’re going to ram all these things through. The solutions have nothing to do with the crisis. They’re just selfish desires of the demagogue. The people, because of the crisis, are going to go along with it, even though in rational moments they would reject it all. We need an element to stop this. We need an element to protect the people from the kind of leaders who would abuse them, mislead them, and, ergo, one of those devices was the United States Senate. “Of course the economy is in crisis. But if Obama had his way, everything would be treated as if it were a crisis. Health care is a crisis. The environment is a crisis. Education is a crisis. In truth, those other areas are not crises, and the Senate’s job is to delay action on them until Obama’s power to stir popular passions fades.”
I was just talking about this with Mr. Snerdley because we were in his office at the top of the hour, and there’s Obama out there making his health care initiative today. Snerdley is getting all worked up about it, “My gosh, every day it’s a new initiative, it’s health care here, card check there, this and that and the other thing, where’s the bill?” I said, “Snerdley, you’re missing the point. There need not ever be legislation on this. Don’t you understand what’s happening here?” Let me tell you people. He goes out and says, (doing Obama impression) “I’m going to take advantage of this opportunity to do health care reform. Health care reform will get you a job, health care reform is one of the reasons the economy is tanking. You need better health care.” Who doesn’t? “Obama is going to get us health care, Mabel, Obama is going to get us health care! Obama, why, he’s going to educate our kids better.” So the approval numbers stay up. All the approval numbers need to stay up is the right rhetoric from Obama. He doesn’t have to do anything, even though he’s going to try to ram a lot of stuff down our throats, he doesn’t have to. As long as he keeps the approval number up, then Warren Buffett is going to back down and Jack Welch is going to back down and Barton Biggs is going to back down, and everybody else is going to back down ’cause they’re going to be afraid. So we have to remember, folks, we don’t have a king. We have separation of powers. We have a system designed to ensure that the president fail when he should.
RUSH: So you see, ladies and gentlemen, all I want and all we want is success for every American. If there’s any worship on this program, it is not of a single man, it is of our Constitution and our other founding documents, and the Founding Fathers who gave them to us. Certainly not of a mortal human being today. I just wanted to go through this to explain it because I know for a fact the tune-in factor — our cume, which is the total audience (they actually showed it to me yesterday) — is literally geometric in its increase. As such, the people listening here who haven’t heard before who come to the program with all of these erroneous misconceptions that they’ve been filled with by the critics of this program for all these 20 years.
Brian Wolff, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee obviously doesn’t know his own party, and what they are up to.
He condemned Rush for saying, “Before it’s all over, it’ll be called the Health Care bill,” as this Yahoo News story points out.
Ah, but I have been listening to Limbaugh for a long time, and I remembered this.
Seems to me that Rush knows more about what the Democrats are doing than Wolff does.
Here is what Rush had to say the day he found the Ted story on October 24th, 2008:
RUSH: By the way, in an exclusive story in the Washington Times that was posted late last night. I was doing show prep. I hate to do it, but I need to pat myself on the back again. Another See, I Told You So. Headline: “‘Senator Kennedy Secretly Crafts Health Care Plan.’ — From his sickbed, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has secretly been orchestrating meetings with lobbyists and lawmakers from both parties to craft legislation that would greet the new president with a plan to provide affordable medical coverage to all Americans, a measure he has called ‘the cause of my life.’ Mr. Kennedy has been sidelined for months with a dangerous form of brain cancer,” but he’s been talking on the phone with people. This is how this stuff works, folks, all of this stuff happens exactly as we tried to tell you. All these big laws that affect us so fundamentally, written behind closed doors with the left, and we end up having to respond to them as they plow forward with these things. This process is rigged from the get-go. One other thing, the last line of the story, a guy named Rother says, “There is this real feeling, let’s do it for Ted!” I told you. National health care in honor and in name of Ted Kennedy. That will be the impetus the left uses to move it through Congress.
Ladies and Gentlemen, if you had been listening to Rush, you would have known this 4 1/2 months ago, and the fake outrage by the Democrat leaders would be as evident to you as it is to me.
Well, Frum isn’t getting in line, so I thought I would try to give him the talk I gave my daughter when she was having trouble getting along with her playground friends.
Look, you are special. Nobody else is Davey Frum. You have talents that no other person in this world possesses. But I have to tell you what the right thing to do is.
There is a tendency of all people, it is in fact human nature, to try to impress other people to feel loved. That feeling is pursued continually by some people, exactly because it is fleeting. True friendship is given by people who are interested in your thought. If you continually say things or do things to seem agreeable to certain people, you will absolutely seem disagreeable to others. For instance, if you compromise your beliefs to get noticed by the popular people, the people who you have stood with in the past will be offended, and since the people of your past are not interested in what is popular, but rather, your thought, you have no chance of true friendship.
My daughter, when she was 9, came to me when she was having a hard time getting along with the other girls on the playground. She was upset because one of the girls didn’t like one of my daughter’s friends and wouldn’t play with my kid unless the other was out of the picture. Not only that, but when playing as a group, one of the girls was very bossy and only wanted to play the game she wanted to play and would not listen to other suggestions. My daughter wondered if she should just go along with the bossy, popular girl because everybody else was, and forget that it was a mean thing to do to her ostracized friend.
I told her, look, you need to understand that you are special, and interesting and beautiful. If you go off and play by yourself, you will find true friendship, because there will be plenty of people that see in you what I see in you, and you will have the right kind of friends. The ones that truly love you and will not abandon you.
Dave, go find some friends. You are not a conservative, so stop trying to say that you are. Rush and Mark have real friends.
I got this email from some moron named David Crock. He thinks I dislike Rush Limbaugh. I changed some of the wording.
Dear Friend, (I’m not your friend)
The conservative movement is breaking down, heating up and the most influential right-wing voice in the media — Rush Limbaugh — has solidified his role as their de facto leader. His proclamation that he “hope[s]” President Obama “fails” started a firestorm that continues to rage. With conservatives dubbing Limbaugh a leader of the conservative movement, Media Matters has launched a new website dedicated to monitoring his commentary and smears: Limbaugh Wire.
When you donate $10 to Media Matters, we’ll send you a “Rush Limbaugh Doesn’t Speak for Me” bumper sticker.
Limbaugh’s radio show commands more than 13 million weekly listeners (and President Obama has insured that it will be many, many more) on more than 600 stations, making him one of the most powerful media figures in America. His impact on the mainstream media is tangible and profound. (Wow, you actually got something right, Davey. ) Conservative commentators and elected officials regularly parrot his talking points think conservatively as well, and speak out on radio, TV, print, and online.
The Limbaugh Wire is a resource center devoted to monitoring silencing the top-rated radio talk show host in America, a man Ronald Reagan dubbed the “Number One voice for conservatism in our Country” and congressional Republicans felt was so influential to their 1994 takeover that they made him an honorary member of the GOP freshman class.
Please support our effort to silence Limbaugh:
When you donate $10 to Media Matters, we’ll send you a “Rush Limbaugh Doesn’t Speak for Me” bumper sticker.
We appreciate your support. Visit MediaMatters.org/limbaughwire/ for frequent updates on all things Limbaugh.
CEO, Media Matters for America
David Frum had this to say when he called Mark Levin this evening.
Lookee what I found.
An Answer to Frum
What pro-lifers believe, or should.
by Ramesh Ponnoru,
November 07, 2003, 11:05 a.m.
Evidently pro-life readers have not honored David Frum’s request not to e-mail him about his latest declaration that he is not pro-life. He responds today by raising two related points about a ban on abortion: 1) Such a ban would tear the country apart and 2) Pro-lifers have a duty to explain what would be done to women who procure an abortion under the ban they seek. Other pro-lifers would no doubt give different answers, but here are mine — in reverse order.
Most pro-lifers have tended to treat the woman seeking an abortion as a secondary victim of the procedure. This answer is intellectually unsatisfying, sentimental, and (arguably) disrespectful of women’s moral agency. I do not believe that criminal penalties against the women can be rejected in principle. But they are not required in principle either. The purpose of a ban on abortion is to provide unborn children with the same legal protection against homicide that other human beings enjoy. If effective equal protection could be provided by removing the medical licenses of doctors who commit abortions and imposing steep fines on non-doctors who commit them, I would have no problem with stopping with such a legal regime. I’m with the aforementioned majority of pro-lifers in this respect: Punishment is not and has never been our main goal.
As the president has acknowledged, the country is not ready for a ban on abortion. If somehow one were to be imposed tomorrow, it would indeed tear the country apart. But nobody believes that will happen, and nobody is organizing to achieve it. In the real world, a general ban on abortion would be achieved only after there was a broad social consensus behind it. Or rather, and more to the point: The process of achieving a ban would go hand in hand with the process of achieving that consensus. One indispensable way of building that consensus if for pro-lifers to continue to insist that all the unborn deserve legal protection. They must, in other words, continue to stand for what Frum calls “moral clarity” (and undervalues). Thus the president couples his acknowledgment of political and social reality with a dose of such moral clarity. He does not disavow the goal of a general ban.
Frum says that he is not a pro-lifer, and he is right. But for practical purposes it makes less difference than one might suppose. He wants to get rid of Roe, to ban partial-birth abortion, and to ban human cloning. Pro-lifers would be ecstatic if we could achieve those three things within the next ten years. Frum is therefore an ally of pro-lifers and an opponent of the abortion lobby. That is so even if he sometimes writes things about pro-lifers’ ultimate goals that annoy and vex us.
* * *
I dare say Ramesh is off the reservation on this one too. Frum sounds exactly like Governor Haley Barbour when he says conservatives need to take “a softer stance on the social issues.”