Posts
"The reason the White House goes after Rush, Newt, and Cheney isn’t because they’re out of power, it’s because they’re unpopular, something Matthews knows (or should know) better than anyone given his network’s obsession with trumpeting Limbaugh’s pronouncements as a foil to Obama."
-- Allahpundit
Get Yourself to Mass
-
It’s Christmas Eve and with one son sick the schedule we had for today was
disrupted but there is one thing that’s going to happen no matter what. I’m
gett...
6 hours ago
But Rush *IS* unpopular, Stacy. He has little to offer those outside the cocoon. Even a non-movement conservative like myself can't really get off on him, because I feel like I'm being force-fed talking points.
ReplyDelete"Ordinary Americans" have got him pegged: A smart and occasionally amusing but ultimately crass, self-aggrandizing, gasbag entertainer without a lick of moral seriousness.
Phil
From comments. The irony. It burns:
ReplyDeleteIf you’re a big Rush fan, I’m surprised you’ve never heard him say that his #1 objective is to increase his audience size. I’ve heard it at least a few times.
jgapinoy on May 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM
And that is wrong…because?
AUINSC on May 26, 2009 at 10:07 PM
…he does it at the expense of his conservative allies.
That's funny, considering how sharply Cheney's numbers are trending up.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Allahpundit ought to know better than anyone how important it is to be . . . popular.
MSNBC is now state owned TV.
ReplyDeleteBut they know "1984" when they see it! Keeith Is a genius SIR!
Yep, Phil, and we know just how terribly unpopular a "crass, self-aggrandizing, gasbag entertainer" can be in America. I mean, it's not like there's an entire industry out there built around just those kind of people or anything, right?
ReplyDeleteThank God those "ordinary Americans" tripled Rush's ratings when the WH went after him.
ReplyDeleteTell me, Phil, what is a "non-movement conservative" and what are the "talking points" (his, others, the movement's?) you're being "force-fed" by voluntarily listening to a "gasbag entertainer"?
ReplyDeleteAnybody who really listened to Rush Limbaugh for even an hour (dedicated as it invariably is in some part to the founding principles of the country) could not possibly come away saying he lacks moral seriousness. The most likely candidate to say he lacks a "lick" of it would be a leftist.
"Cocoon" gave it away, Phil.
rrpjr
And, you listen to him how often, Phil?
ReplyDeleteAllah isn't bashing Rush himself, just noting he's unpopular.
ReplyDelete"just noting he's unpopular."He has always been unpopular, with the left. That's a point in his favor from my standpoint.
ReplyDeleteWanting to play kiss kiss with your enemies means you are not right in the head or they aren't really your enemies. Moderate/pragmatics, the choice is yours, which is it?
I do my best to avoid Rush's show. Still, I've suffered through probably a few dozen hours of it. Only took about five minutes to figure the guy for a crude fire starter who panders to the worst in the crowd.
ReplyDelete"Tell me, Phil, what is a 'non-movement conservative'"
A conservative who rejects the Pajamas Media-Talk Radio-National Review axis of shillery.
A conservative who despises jingoistic national chauvinism wrapped in the cloak of 'patriotism' (i.e. "AMERICA IS THE BEST COUNTRY EVER!").
A conservative who deplores the rise of populism in a philosophy that was traditionally wary of -- if not outright hostile to -- the whimsical, irrational, volatile, and senselessly prejudicial masses.
A conservative who sees nothing wrong with elitism, and recalls wistfully the days when the Right sneered at envy of excellence.
A conservative who isn't obsessed with RINO-hunting -- GASP!: a conservative who regards the whole notion of a 'RINO' as lane playground antics.
A conservative who doesn't have a knee jerk hatred of liberalism, who thinks that, maybe, sometimes, liberals actually have a valuable addition to the conversation.
A conservative who prefers The American Conservative to The Weekly Standard, Front Porch Republic to Townhall, Tucker Carlson to Sean Hannity.
I could go on and on . . .
"lacks a "lick" of it would be a leftist."
I support low taxes, low spending, a culture of life (no to abortion, no to capital punishment, no to cloning, etc.), immigration restriction, the Second Amendment, free enterprise, and strong national defense.
I lean a bit libertarian on certain issues -- legalize pot, prostitution, and same-sex marriage -- but by and large I respect what's called (rightly or wrongly) our 'Judeo-Christian' heritage. Though agnostic, I'd like to see the Ten Commandments kept in courtrooms, prayer allowed in public schools, and Christianity given a real place in public.
Nevertheless, I'd trade Limbaugh -- not to mention 75% of the CPAC line-up -- for an 18-wheeler of Mexican landscapers. He does little but harm conservatism. If I were king of the Right, he would be first against the wall.
Phil
"He has always been unpopular, with the left. That's a point in his favor from my standpoint. "
ReplyDeleteOver the last decade, Rush has managed to secure, at best, tepid support from the general public.
Those folks who really like him are hard conservatives. Even then, there're plenty of dissenters.
Recent Gallup studies show only 3 in 5 Republicans view Rush favorably, and only 1 in 4 Independents. Less than 10% of Democrats dig him, surprise! If he keeps it up, he'll be lucky to pull 10% among Indies.
Phil
"Wanting to play kiss kiss with your enemies means you are not right in the head or they aren't really your enemies. Moderate/pragmatics, the choice is yours, which is it?"
ReplyDeleteUh, I don't consider any of my countrymen "enemies."
And there's a middle road between playing "kiss kiss" with your *OPPONENTS* and flatly rejecting any opportunity to engage them in meaningful, constructive conversation.
Phil
There are so many reasons to bash El Rushbo.
ReplyDeleteBut the primary reason why he is an easy target is
the un-natural respect he commands from elected officials.
It is inconceivable that elected officials in our country should be beholden to a radio talk-show host, and therein lies the problem for Conservatism. I couldn't take seriously any Democrat official who puts Keith Olberman on a pedestal, or any Democrat who had to go crawling, tail between legs, to apologize to Chris Matthews.It simply makes your " movement" look silly.
It makes Bobby Jindal vulnerable, considering the lofty rhetoric when describing his admiration for Rush. Despite his recent resignation, Rush is the defacto leader of Conservatism.
Anonymous poster "Phil" is the kind of voice that Conservatism needs. Someone independent enough to put Rush in his place, namely a disc-jockey hack who's primary M.O. is to get rich while taking oblivious Conservatives for a ride.
The over-arching issue for Conservatism is to become a viable ideology again. That will only happen when Conservatism ceases being another political cottage industry.But how will you guys do it when you are so unwilling to throw the king of tchatchki's under the bus?
For my part, I hope his penis fails.
Oh! Damn....nature already took care of that.
Oh well, I hope his kidney's fail....
Ah.. it's just Phil..
ReplyDeletepay him no mind.
What is a "non-movement conservative?"
ReplyDeleteHere ya go.
http://www.takimag.com/
They call themselves the 'alternative right' there, but I prefer to think of them as the real right.
"A conservative who despises jingoistic national chauvinism wrapped in the cloak of 'patriotism' (i.e. "AMERICA IS THE BEST COUNTRY EVER!")."
ReplyDeleteA concern troll. That phrase right there is a dead giveaway.
There should be no doubt once the word "jingoistic" left his keyboard.
You're not fooling anyone, left winger.
Quote:
ReplyDelete"A conservative who despises jingoistic national chauvinism wrapped in the cloak of 'patriotism' (i.e. "AMERICA IS THE BEST COUNTRY EVER!")."
Name one which is/was better, or admit that you directly contradict yourself by saying:
"A conservative who sees nothing wrong with elitism, and recalls wistfully the days when the Right sneered at envy of excellence."
Quote:
"A conservative who [is] outright hostile to the whimsical, irrational, volatile, and senselessly prejudicial masses."
Name these masses... are they Conservatives, RINOs, or Liberals?
If Conservatives, then you contradict yourself, for you are not one. If RINOs, then you contradict yourself yet again with "a conservative who regards the whole notion of a 'RINO' as lane playground antics." If Liberals, then you contradict yourself yet again with "liberals actually have a valuable addition to the conversation." Why not go for the tri-fecta and say all three? That pretty much agrees with your elitism, that EVERYONE else is prejudicial, but I can see the irony of such a claim would be beyond you.
"I support immigration restriction" but would "trade Limbaugh -- not to mention 75% of the CPAC line-up -- for an 18-wheeler of Mexican landscapers"
Way to stand by your principles.
I could go on and on ... listing the cognitive dissonances in your writing.
You have yet to name even one of the fantastical ways Rush "harms" conservatism... because James Carville says so? So glad you were able to judge a 20 year career in 5 minutes... obviously you had no bias before you heard him and are just that amazingly perceptive. Next time, instead of just hearing it and stewing in your own premeditated suffering, try listening. You're like a 2 year old who "knows" they hate tuna casserole before they try it and spends the whole meal pouting and whining how "terrible" it is.
Limabugh would be the first against the wall? So you want to purify the party of people because they want to ... purify the party? Save a lot of headache and just start with yourself. You, like liberals, do bring something valuable to the conversation: to serve as a warning to others.
I think Phil means he's a "bowel-movement conservative".
ReplyDeleteNearly every comment he has feels like passing gas...
If I were king of the Right, "conservatives" like you would be first against the wall.
So you're first act as king will be to "line him up against the wall"? Gosh, how could I have ever thought you were a leftist.
ReplyDeleteTalk about gasbaggery.
rrpjr
"Phil" sounds like one of those "I'm the only honest and fair-minded person left" RINOs who trash the party, it's leaders and it's leading lights because they are not conservative at all. They are, like Colin Powell, liberals who back Obama and his policies, but seek to add a thin patina of credibility to their opinions by claiming to be fair-minded, moderate Republicans, it's just that they reject every tenet of the party. It covers them like a thin layer of slime as they ooze through threads like this, concern-trolling.
ReplyDeleteCharles Johnson, is that you?
Dear Captain Oblivious (formerly known as Juvenile Blind Boy);
ReplyDeleteYou said
"Despite his recent resignation, Rush is the defacto leader of Conservatism." -- says James Carville. Last I checked, he has no say in who is a "leader of conservatism", which in and of itself is an epic non-sequitur.
Today's lesson class is "you look like an idiot when you pull numbers out of your ... thin air"
Rasmussen shows less than 2% of Republicans view Limbaugh as a "leader." 68% say there is no leader and 17% say they are undecided. McCain gets 5%, Palin 1% and Boehner gets less than 1/2%
General public perception including independents and liberals, due to harping by Emmanuel and company, indicates a 24% perception that Limbaugh is "the leader," still far below McCain with 38% and Gingrich with 25%
So the question here is, even if we ignored the fact that both sets of numbers PROVE YOU WRONG, does the "general perception" of who is "THEIR leader" supercede THEIR NAMING of their leader?
If so, then you really should do something about Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden is the defacto leader of the Democrat party. Why do you guys follow Bin Laden? Bin Laden is harmful to the Democrat party, you should stop mindlessly following his orders. Stop believing your leader Bin Laden's hateful rhetoric.
Answer just one simple yes or no question without equivocating all over the place:
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Capt. Oblivious--
ReplyDeleteDespite your contention, Rush IS the defacto leader of the Conservatism.
And not because I or Carville say so. That's the way it is. Kind of like how your sexual confusion is a foregone conclusion.
I don't resort to meaningless polls.Especially a Rasmussen poll which is about as reliable as a Fox News poll.
I go by the simple fact that I don't recall YOUR elected officials getting bitch slapped by McCain or Gingrich.
You're gonna have to live with the fact that your party suckles at the man-boobs of Limbaugh....
But I'm glad that you bring up Bin Laden, seeing as how similar Conservative ideology resembles Taliban ideology.
And I don't say that because because of what Pete Sessions said, or what Joshua Cooper Ramo said about
Conservatives learning from Hezbollah.I mean you guys are both so scared of gay people, and your attitudes towards women, or your
wish for a more theocratic nation really makes you indistinguishable from your Taliban counterparts.
So who exactly is taking orders from Bin Laden?
Anyway, I will respond to your question.
Do I still beat my wife?
Yes, but your mother really seems to like it...
Dear Captain Oblivious (formerly known as Juvenile Blind Boy);
ReplyDeleteYou're monologuing again. Didn't your leader Osama warn you about the dangers of being caught monologuing? You let things slip, in the Freudian sense, like your obsession with homoeroticism, and the lack of denial of following Osama. Says lots about you... keep it coming.
LOL, you couldn't be a better foil if I scripted you myself!
Until next time, evil-doer! Stay Safe!
Capt. Obviously...
ReplyDeleteYou disappoint so consistently it hurts.
Keep trying though!
I mean, it didn't take long for you to devolve into a non-sensical wind-bag. Maybe one day you can...live that little dream of yours.
Man, no wonder your side lost. Sign this turd up!
Dear Captain Oblivious,
ReplyDelete"Says lots about you... keep it coming."
Insert your last post here
Q.E.D.
Until next time, evil-doer! Stay Safe!
Can't you people read?
ReplyDeleteThings I like:
Low taxes. Little spending. Free markets. States' powers. Keeping Christianity in the public sphere. Strong national defense. A culture of life. The Second Amendment. Limited government, with an emphasis on decentralization and localism. Preserving the canon of Western culture in our schools and universities. Border security and reduced immigration. English as national language.
Oh, yes, I reject everything conservatism and the GOP stands for, alright! Regular lefty, I am.
"You're not fooling anyone, left winger."
You're not fooling anyone about your ignorance of true conservatism. For most of the 20th century, conservatism rejected military adventurism. It preferred the local to the national, viewing patriotism as love of one's country -- that is, one' s neighborhood, one's state, etc. My biggest point of contention with most other 'conservatives' is that I despise war and the military-industrial complex. I love and respect our armed forces, which is exactly why I wish to see them used only when it's totally necessary -- which is next to never. Like the conservatives of old, I am something of an isolationist, and am loathe to get America involved with the quarrels of foreign powers, especially third world tin pot dictatorships.
I am a church going, states' powers conservative, a limited government conservative who would love nothing more than to take a machete to the federal apparatus. I am an anti-federalist republican who is brought to tears by the socialization of our key industries, the deterioration of our Anglo-European identity, and the triumph of a secular, cosmopolitan elite in the halls of power.
My libertarian tendencies set me apart from the social conservatives, but that doesn't mean I'm goddamn a San Fran liberal. I do landscaping 40 hours a week, live and breathe good hard workin', brew-guzzling blue collar life, and hate hipsters, hippies, and other long hairs.
Don't call me a damn leftist. I'm no such thing. Despising Rush, Young Republicans, National Review, and the rest of the D.C.-Manhattan axis of faux conservatism doesn't make you Mao, it makes you a conservative who would've been absolutely normal until the movement and the party went haywire after WWII, and especially in the last fifteen, twenty-five years.
Phil
Hey Phil,
ReplyDeleteDon't bother. You're party was hijacked by a bunch of jackals, and they've given themselves the authority to purify the party of people like you.
You see, there is a "High School Musical" strain to Conservatism today, which means that a clique of self-righteous Cons don't want you eating at their lunch table( despite what Michael Steele says...)
They've bought into the the Limbaugh schlock-politix idea of what Conservatism means, which is nothing more than a warehouse full of
t-shirt's, bumper-stickers, and tchotchke's.
Give up, dude.
Today's Conservatism was raised on stupid.
You are the black sheep of the family...
Dear Captain Oblivious,
ReplyDeleteDehumanizing screed is not a convincing argument, just a demonstration of your bigotry.
Phil is the one who advocated "purifying" by putting someone he found "mean," yet claims to agree with on 95% of the issues, "against the wall." Are you against "purifying" or not, because you can't have it both ways.
I for one don't doubt Phil believes he's a conservative, but that still doesn't address the numerous self-contradictions which are begging caution. He even added a new one. Today is he a "church-going" type. Yesterday he was an agnostic. Neither is "more correct" or necessary to be a conservative. But insisting on both simultaneously is either a symptom of telling people what he thinks they want to hear, or a highly unlikely habit to voluntarily do a repetitive unwanted task of no value. Either one in combination with other contradictions should make any thinking person highly skeptical.
If Phil believes half the conservative principles he lists, great! More power to him. That does not give anyone free-pass from criticism on rampant fallacy and "urge to purge" of other conservatives based on swallowed liberal smears.
You're grammar wood never improve if no won ever criticized when you're miss taken. If I'm hard on Phil, it's because there's hope for him, and what I see as logical mistakes can be corrected by provoking further thought. The same is true in reverse. The tone was intentionally mean in places specifically as part of the object lesson that "some" sarcasm or emotional argument does not discount the remainder of the neutral and rational argument, but rather makes it rhetorically immersive.
Despite our disagreement, you might notice that I for one made a clear distinction between Phil and Liberals, affirming that he is not one... and therefore capable of understanding that mean or sarcastic tone, is not the same as tiresome name-calling screed: a nuance you fail to grasp.
Good job at trying to have a point this time, next time try not to get everything bass-ackwards.
Until next time, evil-doer! Stay Safe!
"I for one don't doubt Phil believes he's a conservative, but that still doesn't address the numerous self-contradictions which are begging caution. He even added a new one. Today is he a "church-going" type. Yesterday he was an agnostic."
ReplyDeleteI am agnostic, but I also frequent church. I enjoy the services, find them soothing and a fine opportunity for introspection. Religion is important to society. I will send my kids to Catholic school, though I don't particularly care if they practice earnestly.
"If Phil believes half the conservative principles he lists, great! More power to him. That does not give anyone free-pass from criticism on rampant fallacy and "urge to purge" of other conservatives based on swallowed liberal smears."
Look, I was being hyperbolic when I talked about putting Rush up against the wall. Cripes.
I think RLim has plenty of good ideas, I just think his temperament and disposition are horribly unattractive, often truly repellent, and his clones are even worse. I despise him less than, oh, Ann Coulter, whose intolerance -- nay, outright hatred -- for those who arrive at different political opinions is unbecoming of a public, er, "intellectual" (I use the word loosely).
Phil