Jennerationx

Did Rush Just Say Obama Is Not A King? What An Outrage!

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.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

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.

March 12, 2009 Posted by | America, children, common sense, conservatives, Democrats, Obama, Rush Limbaugh | , , , , | Leave a comment

Why That’s Preposterous!!

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 Ted Kennedy Memorial 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.

March 7, 2009 Posted by | common sense, conservatives, Democrats, Politics | , , , | Leave a comment

Davey, it’s time to be yourself

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.

Dear Dave,

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.

March 6, 2009 Posted by | children, common sense, conservatives, David Frum, Mark Levin, Politics, Republicans | , , , , | 1 Comment

David Brock-Leader of the pack of leftist morons.

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.

Help fund the 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:

Help fund the Limbaugh Wire.

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.

David Brock
CEO, Media Matters for America

March 5, 2009 Posted by | conservatives, Democrats, Media Matters, Politics, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh | , , | Leave a comment

David Frum, whipping post and buttboy

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,

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.

*   *   *

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200311071105.asp

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.”

March 4, 2009 Posted by | America, common sense, conservatives, Politics, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rush Limbaugh Invites President Obama On His Radio Show.

Even offers to put him up at a 5 star resort, send a fleet of SUV’s to get him from Airforce One, serve him wagu beef at a hundred dollars a pound, all so President Obama can debate Rush to prove that Rush is wrong.

Of course, Obama won’t take him up on the offer, because like Al Gore will not debate global warming,  he will not debate the economy because he is wrong on the issues.

And Rush is Right.

March 4, 2009 Posted by | America, common sense, conservatives, Global Warming, Obama, Politics, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, Stimulus | , , , | 2 Comments

All Rush, all the time

It is a very stupid thing for Obama’s administration to try to keep up the strategy they are currently using with the Republican Party.  They believe it is bad for the Republican Party if they tie Rush to it as it’s leader.  Dumb move, Rush is the defacto leader of the Republican Party, and the more press time he gets, the more people will hear his message of common sense.  Not only that, but it is inspiring everyday folks who listen to his program to enter into the political realm and speak up.

The following is what Rush had to say yesterday:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let’s go to the tape, let’s give you an example of how the White House is encouraging reporters to stay focused on me.  And don’t tell us that those Rahm Emanuel, Stephanopoulos, Carville, Begala secret phone calls every morning don’t have meaning.  The question is from Ed Henry, CNN, of Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman: “The president has spoken a lot about bringing the country together.”  Ed, you’re a butt boy.  You know, my fertile brain, I’m exploding with reaction just to one phrase of the question from Ed Henry.  Just so you know, Ed, the American people want the country to come together.  The American people see it being divided.  The American people want the stock market to succeed, Ed.  They want their neighbors to succeed.  The American people want free enterprise to succeed.  President Obama is proposing policies that are destructive of these purposes.  I want the people to succeed.  I want the country to succeed.  You don’t hear me talking down American history.  You don’t hear me talking down our enterprises.  You don’t hear me talking down our economic system, and you don’t hear me talking down the traditions and institutions that made this country great.

It is Barack Obama, Ed, who talks all of failed nation.  I talk of a failed ideology that is being advanced.  You know, Ed, you people in the media, you ought to be paying some attention to what Obama’s policies and comments are already doing to the economy.  Obama’s administration’s predicting more economic problems for a long time, a contracting economy, while at the same time they’re advancing their ideology to remake the nation.  And Obama admitted it this morning.  There’s a disconnect here between helping the economy grow and helping to create jobs and the ideological agenda of Obama, which is destructive to those ends.  Where is the intelligent reporting on this, Ed?  All of you in the White House press corps, except Jake Tapper.  Jake Tapper is the one guy that’s outside the butt boy bubble in the White House pressroom.  But there’s a huge disconnect here, Ed.  Ed, have you seen what’s happened to your 401(k) since Obama was elected?  The disconnect between helping the economy grow and helping to create jobs and the ideological agenda of Obama which is destructive to those ends, there is no intelligent reporting on this.

The fact is Obama is killing the economy, doing so on purpose, while he’s expanding his power and that of the federal government.  Isn’t that a news story, Ed?  You got a bigger news story than me?  Isn’t what’s happening to people’s lives and their jobs and their homes and their futures, Ed, isn’t that a bigger story than me?  Why don’t you ask Robert Gibbs about that?  “Mr. Gibbs, isn’t the economy and the Wall Street collapse and people losing their jobs and their homes, isn’t that a bigger story than Rush Limbaugh?”  You think Rahm Emanuel could talk about that, some of his talking points to George Stephanopoulos and Carville and Begala?  Is it not worth coverage what’s happening to the US economy?  Barack Obama’s already failing when it comes to the economy.  He is succeeding however in empowering himself and the government.  So Obama is killing the economy, he’s expanding the government, and we’re all supposed to stand up and give him a standing O?  We’re just supposed to stand up and cheer this like you butt boys in the White House media?

Let me ask you this, Ed, or Chuck, or Helen, or, well, hell, I can’t remember any other names in the White House press, they look like they came outta cookie molds.  But let me ask you a question, maybe you ought to ask Gibbs — I know I’m pipe dreaming here, but here’s a question — maybe Jake Tapper should ask Obama or Gibbs, “What would you like Rush Limbaugh to succeed at?  Don’t you want Rush Limbaugh to fail, Mr. Gibbs?  Aren’t you interested in Limbaugh failing?  Mr. Gibbs, what does President Obama want conservatives to succeed at?”  Or you could ask it another way, “Jake, you could say Mr. Gibbs, is Obama trying to permanently defeat conservatism so it’s not a viable force anymore?  What part of our policy, agenda, philosophy, does Obama want us to succeed at?”  I’m plenty happy to talk about what I hope he’s trying to do fails.  But I’m also at the same time the one guy in this country talking about success and my desire that everybody have it.  Here’s the thing, Ed, if we haven’t lost you yet.  We have a man who is systematically trying to destroy his opposition with his policies, and we are debating my defense of our policies as obstructing him?

Barack Obama is trying to destroy his opposition, not just me, the whole Republican Party, the whole conservative movement, with his policies.  And you entertain this White House-led debate that says I, defending my policies and myself, is obstructing Obama?  I’m getting in the way of the authoritarian?  When I listen to you people in the White House press corps and on cable TV, I actually come to the conclusion that you think that we’re just to surrender, surrender everything we believe in, surrender everything we have, surrender it all so Obama’s remaking the nation becomes a reality.  That’s the way you sound, as butt boys in the Obama administration.  Whatever Obama wants, he’s going to get, and whoever’s in the way has got to be defeated, wiped out, or they must surrender.  Well, I’m not giving up, and nor are any of the people on my side.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH.  A quick phone call before the Robert Gibbs sound bite that I promised you.  Chris in Reading, Pennsylvania. Hi.  Nice to have you here.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  I just wanted to express my amazing kudos to you for, you know, sticking up for the conservative side.  We’re out here. We’re listening. We’re waiting for somebody in the political world on the Republican side to say what you’re saying, and nobody is saying it.  They’re trying to out-Democrat the Democrats, and when the Democrats are picking on you, it’s giving somebody an opportunity to express the conservative side and articulate it.  All our politicians do is say, “We need tax cuts. We need lower government, smaller government,” but they never say why. They never express the benefits. They never give a vision. And it’s just refreshing.

RUSH:  They’re not in that frame of mind.  That’s why I touched on this at CPAC in my speech.  What we should be all about right now is just what you said: philosophy.  We’re caught up in policy.  We’re caught up in letting the Democrats establish the agenda or the premise of any issue, and then we debate it as though Obama is just another Democrat to come down the pike.  This is far worse.  This is far more than an average Democrat down the pike.  This is an authoritarian who wants to take as much control for himself and the Democrat Party of this government, the economy, as he can.  It’s silly to start playing around the edges here with policy and simply discussing votes and this and that. We can’t stop anything he wants.

That’s why this is an ideal time for Republicans to set the stage for 2010, and to start running around talking about philosophy and principles. Because you know something, folks?  When you live by your principles — and, by the way, everybody falls off the train now and then. Nobody’s perfect.  We’re not demanding perfection from anybody, but when you live your life by your principles — conservative principles in this case that we’re talking about — the policy comes naturally.  Now, Obama, he has to calculate policy. He has to. We don’t.  But this is a perfect time to be selling conservatism, to contrast Republican conservatism with Obama.  They’re not there yet.  They’re still shell-shocked, and they’re still caught up in the process of policy.  But they’ll get there.  As this goes on and we get closer to Election Day and this stuff keeps up. They’ll catch up, hopefully, ’cause this is the only way we’re going to beat this stuff.  We’re not going to beat this with Democrat Lite.  It ain’t going to happen.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Yesterday at the White House during the press briefing, Ed Henry of CNN… Get this question.  “Bob, the president has spoken a lot about bringing the country together.  And after the stimulus fight, there was a lot of pandering in both parties about bipartisanship.  What’s the White House’s reaction to Rush Limbaugh saying again that he wants the president to fail, specifically on his economic plans, and how does that bode for bipartisanship in the future working with the Republicans?”  Ed, you’re a journalist.  He’s not working with the Republicans!  He’s making a show of working with the Republicans.  Pelosi is not working with the Republicans.  She wrote the stimulus bill. Nobody read it. Nobody saw it. Nobody debated it. Some people asked her about it today.

“Don’t you think you coulda let the Republicans in on this a little bit more?” and Pelosi said today, “They ought to be lucky they got what they got.  I could have fast-tracked this.  I could have made this happen a lot sooner than it did.  They ought to be lucky with what they got.”  Remember: bipartisanship.  This is kind of like war.  The only time you get peace is when one side is defeated.  Bipartisanship only occurs when one side is defeated and loses and caves in.  Ask the Japanese about bipartisanship!  Ask the Germans about bipartisanship!  So it’s a silly, stupid question. (sobbing New Castrati impression) “Oh, no! What does this do for our wonderful president’s notion of bipartisanship, Mr. Gibbs! What can we do? What can we do?”  And here’s Gibbs’ answer.

GIBBS:  The best question, though, is for you to ask individual Republicans whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend.  Do they want to see the president’s economic agenda f-fail?  You know, I — I — I’ve been there a number of, uh — of guests on television throughout the day and may be into tomorrow who can let America know who — whether — whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend.  He doubled down on what he said in January in, uh — in, uh — in — in wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country.  I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said that on the other side relating to, uh, what was going on in this country or our endeavors overseas.

RUSH:  Ed, did you hear what Gibbs said?  He said, “I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said we want failure in the country or our endeavors overseas.”  For God’s sakes, the Democrat Party not only wanted failure, they proclaimed it!  Everybody knows the Democrat Party wanted defeat in Iraq.  They were dissing the troops.  “Oh, we support the troops; we just don’t support the mission.”  It’s like me saying, “Well, I support the president; I just don’t support his policies.”  I would be so sophist as to say that, but this is incredible.  The Democrat Party for six years tried to put this economy into the crapper! The Democrat Party for six years tried to orchestrate the failure of George W. Bush at every turn.

That’s politics. But now all of a sudden we have The Messiah, and we’re supposed to lie down! The Messiah is too crucial, too important, too big to fail.  We must sit idly by, surrender everything we believe so that The Obama Messiah can succeed.  And then you hear him say, “It would be charitable to say that Limbaugh doubled down on what he said in January, wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country.”  Now, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, folks.  My income is derived from economic success.  My business model requires economic success.  Advertisers have to have healthy businesses — not just at the national level, but at the local level — to support local radio stations.

I have preached. I have taught. I have prayed for economic success for everybody.  Hey, Bob? I have investments.  I’ve seen ’em dwindle in value.  My business partners have investments.  My listeners have investments.  You guys in Washington, you’re going to get paid regardless what happens, Bob.  You’re going to get paid, you and Emanuel and Obama, regardless of the success or failure of the economy.  You don’t have any skin in the game, Mr. Gibbs.  You skim off the top.  We could have 25% unemployment.  You’re going to get paid, Mr. Gibbs.  You have no skin in the game.  I’m using the term a lot today because I actually think it fits.  You butt boy media people in that White House pressroom, do you listen to what this man says to you?  Do you actually believe I want economic failure?

Don’t you understand that Obama’s policies equal economic failure?  Obama’s policies destroy the ability for the private sector to create wealth and prosperity and opportunity.  That’s all going to be transferred to the government, which will pick winners and losers.  And he’s gonna tax and punish wealth, achievement, starting at $250,000 a year.  He is going to offer disincentives for people that work hard, Mr. Gibbs — and Ed? You people in the media, that’s why I’m calling you butt boys.  You haven’t the slightest bit of curiosity about any of this?  And you think I’m supposed to shut up and lay down?  I don’t want to see the wealth of this nation destroyed.  I don’t want our economy to fail.  What is so hard to understand? Well, it’s not hard to understand.

They are purposely distorting all of this for a multiplicity of reasons.  Gibbs also said… There was something else in this piece.  Da-da-da-da-da-da, da-da-da-da, da-da-da-da-da.  “Do they want to see the president’s economic agenda fail?  You know, I bet there are a number of guests on TV throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether they agree with what Limbaugh said this weekend.”  So the White House is directing and leading reporters in what to say, what guests to get, and what questions to ask them. This is a teachable moment.  That’s not what I said.  The White House needs a press release or some kind of direct communication, maybe another open letter to the president.  Maybe I should write another op-ed or something.

END TRANSCRIPT

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

March 4, 2009 Posted by | common sense, conservatives, Obama, Politics, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh | , , | 1 Comment

Rush Limbaugh, Conservative

March 1, 2009 Posted by | America, conservatives, Politics, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh | , , | Leave a comment