Posted on 03/05/2009 5:23:07 AM PST by CASchack
It's been a win-win the past few days for Democratic and Republican loyalists, but what about the rest of us?
You know. Americans who either don't think that (a) spending nonexistent trillions is quite the way to proceed in an economic crisis, or that (b) Rush Limbaugh is the messiah.
Oh wait, that's right, Barack Obama is the messiah. I get confused sometimes, what with so much deification going on. Limbaugh's 85-minute speech at last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference, frequently interrupted by grateful applause from a slightly star-struck audience, was, dare we say it, Obama- esque.
But where there's deification, there's bound to be demonization. Thus, Rush told conferees that Obama, in essence, is Stalin. And Obama, via chief commando Rahm Emanuel, anointed Limbaugh as leader of the GOP, calling him the "voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party."
Talk about damning with praise.
El Rushbo can't have minded much, despite his protestations that he was being manipulated and maligned by the White House to distract Americans from the "plunging economy." What could be better for a talking head than to be chosen by a president as his worthy adversary?
At least finally both sides certainly should agree on one thing: The Fairness Doctrine is a terrible idea! Who wants fair and politically balanced commentary on the airwaves when being "unfair" is keeping both armies in their Humvees?
The body politic, meanwhile, resembles a tempest-tossed ocean liner on which passengers scurry across the deck as the ship pitches. On one side is the president, promising to build a new $3.6 trillion ark. On the other is El Rushbo, clutching the conservative tablature: Thou shalt not raise taxes.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
The principle is not the number of employees, the cost of the tax, or what is or isn't "peanuts" according to the dollar scale of a business' annual gross.
The principle is that government stifles prosperity. The principle is that the government has zero business interfering in how businesses do or don't provide health insurance to employees. THAT is a conservative principle. Romney vetoed the surcharge -- so what? Had he been true to conservative principle, he would have vetoed the whole damned thing and refused, even at his own expense, to enable it. If you were true to conservative principle, you wouldn't be looking at this issue as "policy" and details; instead, you'd be looking at the big picture and how it illustrates the wisdom of getting government out of the way of small business.
But oh, I forgot -- you know all about a small business can and cannot afford in the way of taxes.
I never presumed to judge it. YOU'RE the one who did that. All by yourself.
I responded to the “endorsement” issue. You ignored it. Yes, Rush made it a point not to make a formal endorsement. He had announced that he would not endorse anyone during the primary, IIRC.
But more than once he had very good things to say about Romney, including the quotd on this thread, where he was that of the three candidates remaining, Romney was the one who was articulating the position he believed in.
I said all that, but you ignored it. Instead, you just get more and more cranked up. What, pray tell, is your problem, other than blind, irrational rage whenever anyone has the temerity to support Mitt Romney?
WHY do you think he said it?
Answer, please?
Because he had announced that he was not going to make a formal endorsement during the primaries, IIRC.
FACTOID OF THE DAY:
What 'conservative' politician has been exposed buying and awarding an 'award'?
"Behind the empty gestures and deceptive rhetoric, Romney was not pro-life
or a defender of marriage by any stretch of the imagination.
He was a disaster," said O'Gorman, of the board for Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
He said Romney "deceptively" claims to have been awarded
a pro-life award from the group.
"The award Romney arranged for himself with the local Pioneer Valley Chapter
was the Mullins Award for Political Leadership, not a pro-life award
and not approved by MCFL's state board of directors," he said.
"We're blowing the whistle to warn voters…"
[Family leaders call Romney 'disaster' - Letter criticizes 'deceptive rhetoric' around candidate]
Oh, I see. You're one of those ideological purists who refuses to ever compromise.
In the real world, you never get everything you want. No politician, not even Ronald Reagan, could be true to his principles 100% of the time. If he had been, he would never have gotten elected.
There's a word for a politician who sticks to principle no matter what: loser.
It's kind of like if three years ago, you needed a vehicle but were so broke you had to choose between three cars -- one with a bad suspension, one with a rusted body, and one that had been in the shop nine times in the last five months. Out of desperation, you opt for the one with the bad suspension as the best choice of a bad lot -- and here I am, three years later, telling everyone that you are a really big fan of cars with bad suspensions.
That's what Romney supporters are doing to Rush and Levin I know for certain sure, and therefore I am inclined to think that it probably holds true for nearly every name on the faux-endorsement list that Romney supporters present so disingenuously.
When you spin Rush's words and when your fellow Romney supporters go so far as to lie and call Rush's words an "endorsement," you're trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear at the expense of your ethics and your honesty.
I didn't ignore what you said -- indeed, you ignore what Rush actually said, and you ignore it when I point out what Rush actually said.
...Blind, irrational rage ... is how you describe my tone. All I can do is shake my head in amazement.
You reply: Because he had announced that he was not going to make a formal endorsement during the primaries, IIRC.
If he had already announced it, why did he feel compelled to say, "I stress again here: I am not endorsing anybody." Why did he say it? You're the lawyer. Are you presenting as an argument that Rush was only reiterating his "no formal endorsement" policy?" For what reason? To imply that he really didn't mean it, that indeed he was informally endorsing Romney by saying, "I stress again here: I am not endorsing anybody"?
Huh?????
WHY did Rush stress that his words about Romney were not to be taken as an endorsement?
As some kind of signal that indeed he meant the opposite???
There's a word for Romney, who spent more money than any other Republican candidate in the primary: LOSER.
There's a word for people who think going along with Republican politicians who abandon principle for political expediency is sure strategy for losing elections.
That word is conservatives.
No, you are supposed to not drag Mormon dogmatic debates beyond the Religion forum. So leave this thread.
Why do you think he said it? He had committed not to make a formal endorsement during the primaries. My impression is that he has never endorsed during a primary, but I couldn’t say that for certain because I don’t listen to him all the time.
He warmly praised Romney after his religion speech. He announces that Romney is the one of the three candidate remaining who embodied conservative ideals.
If you look at the substance of what Rush said, it is very positive for Romney, and singles out Romney as the one person who embodied Rush’s ideals. If you want to split hairs over whether that is an “endorsement” or not, and hysterically accuse people of lying if they think it does constitute an endorsement, have at it.
As for me, these are the last keystrokes I’m going to waste on this discussion.
I think Rush said "I stress again here: I am not endorsing anybody" because he meant it. I think he said it because he didn't want people like you going around falsely claiming endorsement. Fat lot of good it did him.
You say that he "warmly praised Romney after the religion speech." I know you didn't do it deliberately, but your choice of words is misleading. What Rush did was praise Romney warmly for the religion speech, NOT for Romney's politics. When Rush made the three legs speech that you and others are so eager to interpret as an endorsement, he used the word "probably" and the word "embody" instead of "certainly is" and "upholds." He was very ginger in how he worded it, deliberately ginger, and furthermore, the three legs speech, if you examine it, was about how the other candidates were not even attempting to "embody" all three legs of conservatism. Be HONEST about it, for crying out loud! That's all I ask and all I rightly expect.
I'm a writer and I pay very close attention to word choices because, as Rush often says, words mean things. When Rush said "Folks, there was only one conservative on the stage last night and that candidate was Fred Thompson," there was no "probably," no "embodies conservatism," no careful phraseology so as to negate any accusations of having made an endorsement, and no reminder at the time to listeners not to mistake his words as an endorsement.
And indeed, we Thompson fans had high enough standards of ethics and truthfulness that none that I recall ever made the claim that Rush "endorsed" Fred. They didn't because it would have been a lie.
Romney people are lying when they say Rush "endorsed" Romney. ACCEPT IT, because it is the truth. Instead, you take very clear-spoken words -- "I stress again here: I am not endorsing anybody" -- and rationlize them into really being Rush's way of saying, "I endorse Romney."
Come on. BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF.
Then the MORMONs will ALSO have to follow this FR 'rule'?
You have been told REPEATEDLY to not drag your dogmatic debates outside the Relgion forum. And yes, it IS a rule, with full support of all moderators and Jim. I will deal with others as it happens, but you are the worst offender.
So, once again, leave this thread, and keep your religious debates in the Religion forum.
I see you are still wrestling our “Economist”
My daddy always had a saying so to speak about “economic experts’.
“Son when they move into our neighborhood I might listen to them”...
Thinking about a dollar is one hell of a lot different than making one.
Ol' "curiosity kid" is no economist in my book -- he or she is a Daddy Stater, benevolent overseer, convinced that he is the best qualified to decide what's in the best interest of everybody else.
I wish all economists were like two of my biggest heroes, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams.
Now those are two economists whose inisight has real value. I have a hunch they'd be about as impressed with the kid's economic "insight" as we are.
If they were such experts they would be filthy rich.
Now there are exceptions like Sowell and Williams, but they are both intellectually smart as well as reality smart.
Remember Karl Marx was considered an economist too, and we know how well that has worked out. The term is a title only.
I do like his referring to the fee as "peanuts" it shows a certain level of ignorance of economic reality and business acumen. In the many years I owned my own company I was peanutted to death, and it wasn't any more pleasant or appreciated when we were making good money than the first couple of years when I struggled to break even.
No...you probably deserve something much better.
You asked me in private mail if I am Mormon. Nope. And none of my family or friends are Mormons. If you have any questions re the religion, I know only what I have read or studied in college. I do find offensive the anti Mormonism I have noticed here. The hysteria over Mitt Romney might be looped upon as humorous. Say “Rush endorsed Romney” and watch them flip out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.