What the Hell Happened to Me?

Politics • Views: 7,332

DrewM. at Ace of Spades thinks something has happened to me:

Charles seems genuinely confused that some people might actually say out loud they don’t want Sotomayor confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Uh, no, that’s not my point at all. (But I don’t expect careful reasoning from the Ace of Spades crowd, either.)

I’ve spelled this out pretty clearly (I thought) previously, but here it is again, since so many seem determined to miss it.

To me, the issue is very simple — almost blindingly simple, in fact: openly wishing for political opponents to “FAIL!” is horrendously bad politics.

When Rush Limbaugh says he wants Obama to fail, even if he backpedals and says he wants “policies” to fail, a whole lot of people in this country hear him saying he wants America to fail — because, like it or not, Barack Obama was elected President by a majority of the voters in this country.

When you spout this “I want you to fail!” rhetoric, it’s a giant turn-off to a large segment of the American population. It’s not just bad politics — it’s stupid, self-defeating politics.

It makes you look petty, weak, and vindictive.

These are not attractive qualities.

Criticize policies all you like, and work to defeat politicians you don’t agree with. But wishing out loud for Obama or his Supreme Court nominees to “fail” is mean-spirited, negative, and hands ammunition to your political enemies that they will gladly use.

I’m frankly surprised that so many of today’s conservatives, including DrewM., fail to understand this very simple point about politics.

Jump to bottom

449 comments
1 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:05:52pm

I don't want Sotomayor to fail one bit. I don't want her getting even near the bench.

2 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:06:44pm

And I agree with you Charles, the fail bit is worthless rhetoric which only makes conservatives look weak.

3 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:07:30pm

Have you ever felt alone?

4 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:08:26pm

re: #3 Walter L. Newton

Have you ever felt alone?

the mall closed an hour ago sir...

5 livefreeor die  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:09:56pm

Hello...Hello...Hello...
Echo...echo...echo...

6 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:09:57pm

re: #3 Walter L. Newton

Have you ever felt alone?

I have cats.
So not really.

7 livefreeor die  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:11:21pm

re: #6 DEZes

I have cats.
So not really.

Speaking of cats-and feeling alone-
Am I the only person in America who found the musical, Cats, to not be as great as it was hyped to be?

8 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:11:28pm

Well, a little advice from the Ministry of Truth today...

“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” Gibbs said."

[Link: www.politico.com...]

Does this guy Gibbs have a "kick me" sign on his back?

9 jcm  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:11:55pm

Shhhhhh!

Let Walter get very, very nervous.

10 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:12:09pm

The "wish for failure" thing was intended to lay down the basis for stark contrasts that the majority of Americans would identify with and flock to.

It failed.

Now I know where MoveOn.org was when they decided on their name.

11 livefreeor die  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:12:33pm

re: #8 Walter L. Newton

Well, a little advice from the Ministry of Truth today...

“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” Gibbs said."

[Link: www.politico.com...]

Does this guy Gibbs have a "kick me" sign on his back?

Yes, underneath the "tool" one.

12 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:12:52pm

Charles, your attempt to convey your thoughts to some has failed.
But I don't think anyone wanted that.

/I want Capt. Ahab to fail..........

13 AMER1CAN  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:13:14pm

Newsflash: Hoping your opponents fail has never been a winning game plan!

14 jcm  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:13:26pm

re: #8 Walter L. Newton

Well, a little advice from the Ministry of Truth today...

“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” Gibbs said."

[Link: www.politico.com...]

Does this guy Gibbs have a "kick me" sign on his back?

Pinned there by BHO.......

15 HelloDare  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:13:38pm

I want the Denver Nuggets to fail.

16 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:13:41pm
17 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:14:14pm

I also think making a racial issue out of this is distasteful.

18 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:14:24pm

re: #7 livefreeor die

Speaking of cats-and feeling alone-
Am I the only person in America who found the musical, Cats, to not be as great as it was hyped to be?

Never wasted my time on it.

19 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:15:03pm

re: #13 AMER1CAN

Newsflash: Hoping your opponents fail has never been a winning game plan!

Ironically, simply saying "hope" has become a winning game plan.

If that fact doesn't point to our collective political ineptitude and get us to change tactics, I don't know what will motivate us.

20 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:15:22pm

re: #13 AMER1CAN

Newsflash: Hoping your opponents fail has never been a winning game plan!

Yeah, Patton said "....make the enemy son-of-a-bitch die for his countr....."
hmmmmmm, well, nevermind.........

21 jcm  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:15:26pm

re: #13 AMER1CAN

Newsflash: Hoping your opponents fail has never been a winning game plan!

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

;-P

22 livefreeor die  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:16:02pm

re: #18 DEZes

Never wasted my time on it.

I went to see it and kept waiting to be amazed by "how great" it was.
Seventeen years later I'm still waiting.

23 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:16:12pm

re: #16 Iron Fist

But "MoveOn" has been stuck in the same groove for over a decade now. They can't move on. If they did, they'd become irrelevant.

You are right that they didn't moveon ideologically. They did change tactics. And now they have the power.

24 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:16:25pm

re: #11 livefreeor die

Yes, underneath the "tool" one.

Gibbs was replying to Newt:
"White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw," Gingrich wrote.

25 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:16:37pm

re: #21 jcm

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

;-P

Arnold is failing too...

26 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:17:11pm

re: #21 jcm

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

;-P

Conan.

27 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:17:28pm

re: #17 Killgore Trout

...and using cheap tricks like out of context quotes and faulty statistics doesn't help either. Facts are too easy to check these days. The only people who are influenced by this are the blind partisan idiots who already hate her. To the unimpassioned observer it just looks like your criticisms are without basis.

28 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:17:52pm

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I also think making a racial issue out of this is distasteful.

I agree with you Killgore.

Sotomayor shouldn't have said the things she has said, written the things she has written and let her Latina cultural experience color (pun intended) her judicial decisions.

29 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:17:57pm

re: #24 avanti

Gibbs was replying to Newt:
"White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw," Gingrich wrote.

did he really?

30 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:18:55pm

I'm a moderate American
I don't believe in the word fail..I never live one second of my life to fail..
I believe in Success for America...Fail is sour grapes and unamerican..
So lets just say Obama's economic plans fall flat on their ass..Fail all the way around..The economy crashes and America doesn't have a pot to piss in..
The Chinese call in their markers and we are crushed..
Would you be happy then you Ace of spade fucks? Anybody that wants our elected president and America in ANY WAY to fail are sick.. I want a half way decent country left when we vote him out..

31 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:19:17pm

re: #3 Walter L. Newton

Have you ever felt alone?

All the time, friend. that's why I like posting here. It makes me feel less alone.

32 Racer X  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:19:22pm

I don't want (all of) Obama's policies to be successful. I don't want Sotomayor's opinions to be law.

Does that make me bad?

33 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:19:34pm

re: #29 brookly red

did he really?

Yep

Racist.

34 HelloDare  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:19:55pm

re: #7 livefreeor die

Speaking of cats-and feeling alone-
Am I the only person in America who found the musical, Cats, to not be as great as it was hyped to be?

No you're not alone.

Quoting Jstauffer from the last thread, Cats SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKED.

35 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:19:57pm

re: #24 avanti

Gibbs was replying to Newt:
"White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw," Gingrich wrote.

Right, he was.

But what if I said to you, in regards to some comment you make here "I think it is probably important for Avanti to be exceedingly careful with the way in which he's decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation."

A little threatening, isn't it?

36 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:20:13pm

re: #22 livefreeor die

I went to see it and kept waiting to be amazed by "how great" it was.
Seventeen years later I'm still waiting.

Well, I can just say.... Meow.
Have a wonderful one Lizards, I must be off.

37 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:20:16pm

re: #21 jcm

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

;-P

Leonidas, is that you?

//

38 MandyManners  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:20:39pm

I hope he fails to change this nation into a second-rate, socialist hell-hole.

39 kynna  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:20:44pm

re: #27 Killgore Trout

...and using cheap tricks like out of context quotes and faulty statistics doesn't help either. Facts are too easy to check these days. The only people who are influenced by this are the blind partisan idiots who already hate her. To the unimpassioned observer it just looks like your criticisms are without basis.

I agree. In context, the case of that particular quote is made much more strongly that she plays racial politics from the bench. Which is probably why the White House is not shoving the entire speech (transcript available) in everyone's faces and just saying the quote is out of context.

40 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:20:57pm
41 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:21:05pm

re: #32 Racer X

I don't want (all of) Obama's policies to be successful. I don't want Sotomayor's opinions to be law.

Does that make me bad?

depends on the judge...

42 albusteve  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:21:29pm

re: #2 Walter L. Newton

And I agree with you Charles, the fail bit is worthless rhetoric which only makes conservatives look weak.

"I have the strength of twenty men!"
JH

43 MandyManners  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:21:37pm

re: #36 DEZes

LATER!

44 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:21:49pm

re: #32 Racer X

I don't want (all of) Obama's policies to be successful. I don't want Sotomayor's opinions to be law.

Does that make me bad?

No, but just make sure you know what Sotomayor's opinions really are. There's a helluva lot of disinformation being tossed into the intarwebs.

45 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:22:22pm

Gotta disagree with you here.
There are plenty of people and groups that I want to fail in their agenda.

Limbaugh didn't backpedal. It was always clear from the onset that he was talking about Obama's policies and not the country . He has always said that he believes that in order for the country to be successful Obama must fail. I.e. IF Obama's policies are successful in the way that Obama wants them implemented, he believes the country as we know it and the founders envisioned it will fail. (whether you believe with Limbaughs conclusion is a different matter).

THe fact that the media tries to play this in a a deceptive light and tries to paint this in a petty and vindictive light does not make it so. I admire Limbaugh for not backing down on this.
He knows what he said and what he meant. The fact that people may be to stupid or lazy to actually think about the comment and swallow the narrative as laid out by the media is not Limabughs fault.

I also want Palestinians to fail in their agenda. I want communist Cuba and China to fail in their agenda. I want the oil cartels to fail in their attempts to raise the price of oil. I want Iran to fail to get Nuclear capabilities etc etc etc.

If someones success is bad for me, my children and my country I wish for them to fail.
Why is that a horrible thought?

46 HelloDare  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:22:34pm

re: #38 MandyManners

I hope he fails to change this nation into a second-rate, socialist hell-hole.

That's unAmerican. /

47 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:22:42pm

re: #1 Walter L. Newton

Too late, Walter! Sotomayor's already on the bench.

48 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:22:51pm

re: #38 MandyManners

I hope he fails to change this nation into a second-rate, socialist hell-hole.

He will sell the Republicans in the beltway a second-rate, quasi-socialist purgatory-hole as a compromise (with pork) and they will go along.

49 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:23:25pm

re: #40 Killgore Trout

Gingrich Tweets Sotomayor 'Racist'--On Visit to Auschwitz!

I couldn't think of a better place for a person (Newt in this case) to be reminded of what racist doctrine can eventually do to a country. Hat's off to Newt on this point. He is simply recognizing what Sotomayor has shown herself to be. It's her own words, articles and judicial decisions that speak the loudest, not Newt.

50 kynna  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:23:43pm

re: #7 livefreeor die

Speaking of cats-and feeling alone-
Am I the only person in America who found the musical, Cats, to not be as great as it was hyped to be?

It was better than Starlight Express -- by the same team. Way better. Which tells you a little sumpin about Starlight Express. O_o

51 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:23:48pm

re: #45 danrudy

Gotta disagree with you here.

Imagine, if you will, my surprise.

52 jcm  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:23:50pm

re: #37 Dark_Falcon

Leonidas, is that you?

//

Tonight we dine.......
IN HELL!

53 JammieWearingFool  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:24:33pm

Obama's failing pretty well on his own. Just take a look at the anemic jobs numbers. I hope he does fail with this judicial hack. The only reason she's nominated is because she's Puerto Rican.

Pretty obvious.

Still, there's no way to stop her appointment since the Dems have the numbers and the GOP is feckless.

Still, doesn't obscure the fact she's a racist hack. I don't give a shit she's from the same borough I grew up in.

A hack is a hack is a hack.

Obama is playing racial politics. Anyone who can't see that is willfully blind.

His next nominee will be an open lesbian, or Asian, or transgendered Pacific Islander, in case he needs to further corner any of those demographics.

In today's America, qualifications don't matter. It's all about your skin color, ethnicity and far left politics.

Yay!

54 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:24:42pm

re: #47 quickjustice

Too late, Walter! Sotomayor's already on the bench.

I'm talking about the SC bench.

55 albusteve  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:24:48pm

jcm is cranked...WOOK OUUUT!

56 livefreeor die  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:25:13pm

re: #50 kynna

It was better than Starlight Express -- by the same team. Way better. Which tells you a little sumpin about Starlight Express. O_o

Wow-glad I missed Starlight Express!

57 Racer X  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:26:37pm

re: #44 Charles

No, but just make sure you know what Sotomayor's opinions really are. There's a helluva lot of disinformation being tossed into the intarwebs.

Agreed. But I have heard her own words say things that I am concerned about. Not rabid. Just concerned.

*Racer X raises one eyebrow*

58 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:26:58pm

re: #56 livefreeor die

Wow-glad I missed Starlight Express!

I actually liked Starlight Express and I still have a soundtrack CD of it.

59 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:27:38pm

re: #51 Charles


LOL....
Believe it or not Charles, I agree with you more then 80% (I am using the Sotomayer magic number) of the time.
However, I tend to voice my disagreements much more then the agreements. Echo's dont make for interesting discussions. I learn more from discussions about things I disagree with then I agree with.

60 calcajun  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:27:45pm

"If you make your opponent look stupid, you lose the justification for taking him on in the first place." --"Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", John Le Carre.

61 kynna  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:28:15pm

The way I see this playing out is a couple of GOP will strongly question her (because they should and there are a lot of people who are wondering WTF) and they will be painted by the WH and MSM as racists.

Then, when Obama places comprehensive immigration reform before them, they and all the other craven Republicans in congress will jump to it like jackrabbits. It's a win win for the bully-in-chief.

62 calcajun  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:28:21pm

re: #58 Dark_Falcon

I actually liked Starlight Express and I still have a soundtrack CD of it.

Not to be confused with "Midnight Express".

63 livefreeor die  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:29:00pm

re: #58 Dark_Falcon

I actually liked Starlight Express and I still have a soundtrack CD of it.

I loved Phantom of the Opera and the music for it. I also liked the song, Memories, and the music from Jesus Christ Superstar (although I never saw it). Maybe I'll give the Starlight Express soundtrack a listen.

64 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:29:30pm

I don't wish illness on anyone. I don't wish failure on anyone. From long and sad historical experience, I think fascist or communist economic policies are doomed, and will fail. To the extent President Obama is indulging in such policies, I think them (the policies) doomed to fail. For the country's sake, I hope President Obama recognizes and reverses failing policies before serious damage is done. I'm not optimistic about this.

65 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:29:46pm
66 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:29:50pm

re: #44 Charles

No, but just make sure you know what Sotomayor's opinions really are. There's a helluva lot of disinformation being tossed into the intarwebs.

The problem is that she has a conflicting opinions. She rules for allowing a developer to use the threat of eminent domain to extort $800,000 out of some landowners who want to build a CVS pharmacy one day, and on another she is against the state of Illinois confiscating property "caught in the crossfire" of a drug bust.

So where does she stand?

idunno.

Great pick there Obama. We have a huge country with many legal scholars. Obama himself was sold as a legal scholar. And we get another Ivy league educated nominee who has little to contribute but an uncertain perspective.

That is the scandal. But our president has mediocre credentials too.

67 HelloDare  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:29:55pm

You know what would be a colossal fail? A federal sales tax.

A White House official said a VAT is “unlikely to be in the mix” as a means to pay for health-care reform. “While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers,” said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag…

The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits.

What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, “100 Million Unnecessary Returns,” Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 — about 90 percent of households — from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation’s debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.

68 Typicalwhitey  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:30:02pm

Lots of Dems wanted Bush to fail.
Didn't seem to hurt them in the election.

69 jaunte  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:30:04pm
"When you spout this “I want you to fail!” rhetoric, it’s a giant turn-off to a large segment of the American population. It’s not just bad politics — it’s stupid, self-defeating politics."

Those are the people in play in the middle, who didn't vote for the Republican candidate in the last election. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Not seeing it will lead to a longer period out of power for conservatives.

70 snowcrash  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:30:12pm

re: #35 Walter L. Newton
Agreed. It is threatening. There is an implied "or else". Or else what?

71 slartybartfast  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:30:13pm

How many times during the Presidential campaign of '08 did we hear, "If you're not voting for Obama, it can only be because you're a racist!" Despite the weakness of that claim, BHO's supporters were able to use it over and over because the media treated each repetition as though it was some new angle--some truly useful and insightful analysis!

Will that same tried and true tactic be used here? Of course! And, with complete media support. So, opponents of BHO's nominee need to proceed with caution but proceed nevertheless!

I have a bad feeling that judgment before this particular judge might go something like this:

"I'm aware of the details of the case, counselor. What I need to know is: is the defendant a woman or a man of color?"

72 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:30:26pm

re: #62 calcajun

Not to be confused with "Midnight Express".

No, not at all. I've never seen Midnight Express and I don't intend to.

73 kynna  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:30:29pm

re: #58 Dark_Falcon

I actually liked Starlight Express and I still have a soundtrack CD of it.

Andrew Lloyd Webber's attempt at "rap" is not good. I'll admit, those soaring ballads are as good as always, but the Freight is Great ... not so much. :P

I updinged you so you know I still respect you. ;D

74 saberry0530  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:30:38pm

re: #58 Dark_Falcon

I actually liked Starlight Express and I still have a soundtrack CD of it.

For some reason or another, I read that as Starland Vocal Band! Send help now...

75 albusteve  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:31:18pm

re: #64 quickjustice

I don't wish illness on anyone. I don't wish failure on anyone. From long and sad historical experience, I think fascist or communist economic policies are doomed, and will fail. To the extent President Obama is indulging in such policies, I think them (the policies) doomed to fail. For the country's sake, I hope President Obama recognizes and reverses failing policies before serious damage is done. I'm not optimistic about this.

how sweet of you...a kinder, gentler albusteve will agree with that...words have meaning

76 Ojoe  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:31:30pm

IMHO politics has become poison, at least as regards the two major parties.

Down with both of them.


Here is some natural beauty, you may guess what it is if you have been here a while.

BBL

77 cybermonk  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:31:32pm

re: #30 HoosierHoops
If he succedes in getting his way, the Country will fail, is that what you want? we are very close to the abyss with this joker. cap and trade, VAT and trillions of debt, can lead to another depression UNLESS he fails.

78 livefreeor die  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:31:33pm

re: #64 quickjustice

I don't wish illness on anyone. I don't wish failure on anyone. From long and sad historical experience, I think fascist or communist economic policies are doomed, and will fail. To the extent President Obama is indulging in such policies, I think them (the policies) doomed to fail. For the country's sake, I hope President Obama recognizes and reverses failing policies before serious damage is done. I'm not optimistic about this.

Me either. That would require insight and humility on his part, neither of which have been obvious to date.

79 AFVetWife  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:32:40pm

re: #30 HoosierHoops
Hmm - conundrum here. I don't want the country to fail, or a President to fail; however, I DO want certain policies and/or positions to fail. What I want to succeed is all the values that most of us grew up with. I believe in liberty, in the Constitution, in old-fashioned patriotism, in our military and all they do/have done for us. I believe in individual liberty, in entrepreneurship, in profit. I believe in all the richness that legal immigration has brought us. What I want to fail is a progression towards Socialism, Communism (yes, I'm old enough to remember all the threats that brought), Fascism, and anything that diverts us from the path upon which our Founders set this nation.

80 Zimriel  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:33:00pm

Here's a post on the AoSHQ thread, from an old friend to many here -

56 Even posting at other sites where other posters insult LGF will lead to banning. One is found guilty of treason by association.

I left because I'm just too conservative, but I never said anything derogatory about LGF, Charles, or any posters. They, however, vilified me.

It wasn't a healthy atmosphere for me, and their behavior when I chose to post elsewhere proved that I made the right choice.

Please, Ace, don't change. That would truly break my heart.

Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at May 27, 2009 07:16 PM (vqkDD)

81 albusteve  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:33:42pm

this FAIL? debate is simply ridiculous....a hair splitting waste of time...I have spoken

82 jcm  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:34:08pm

Sotomayor will be seated on SCOTUS.

Unless she has a nanny or tax issues that is.

The time to be concerned to block this type of nomination was in the days leading up to Nov. 4.

The (R)s will not expend the political capital to block Sotomayor. Reason being she won't change the balance of court, the political consideration will be that it won't be worth the cost of the fight, just to get another similar appointment if she fails. With the defection of Spector they could bottle her up in Judicary Committee. But that won't happen because of the hell to pay in the MSM. Also she won't be filibustered in the floor vote. She will pass on a narrow party line vote.

My objection to Sotomayor is not her qualifications, it's her suitability to determine laws in a Constitutional context.

83 livefreeor die  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:34:18pm

re: #73 kynna

Andrew Lloyd Webber's attempt at "rap" is not good. I'll admit, those soaring ballads are as good as always, but the Freight is Great ... not so much. :P

I updinged you so you know I still respect you. ;D

Rappers on roller skates?
I think I'll stay home and watch the test pattern on my TV.

84 Racer X  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:34:23pm

I am in agreement with Charles on the point that if those on the right go bat-shit crazy on Sotomayor it will make them look like idiots and turn off a lot of potential allies later on. Pick your battles. Sotomayor is the bait. Don't touch this one. Wait for Obama to push the really radical one and fight that. There is no way in hell Sotomayor gets turned down. First Hispanic woman? Done.

85 Karridine  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:34:56pm

re: #53 JammieWearingFool

"...the only reason..."


Well, maybe.

But another reason Sotomayer was nominated is her record: 60% of her decisions were reversed at the appellate level, on appeal.

If so, that could make her somebody who sides with Obama 60% of the time, plus part of the rest of the decisions...

86 kynna  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:36:35pm

re: #56 livefreeor die

Wow-glad I missed Starlight Express!

It was fascinating. I saw it in London. It was about trains. Everyone wore roller skates and there were tracks all along the ceiling and through the audience. The technical aspects were pretty amazing.

But, as I said above, ALW was trying to write rap and it was just awful, IMO.

The spectacle of it outweighed the few good songs and the whole thing fell apart. It didn't take off.

Cats was pointless, but the production I saw had excellent dancers and singers and that made it worthwhile.

I haven't seen a newer musical that I've liked in a long time.

87 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:37:04pm

re: #65 Iron Fist

But do you really want him to succeed at implementing his agenda? Do you want him to get his socialized medicine through the House and Senate, and be signed into law and then implemented? He has said he won't push gun control, but if you look at this AG (Holder) and now his first (and hopefully only) Supreme Court pick, and you can see it there in the background, waiting for the right time and circumstances to come out. Do you want him to succeed at that?

I don't want the economy to collapse under 1000% inflation just to make Obama look bad. Yeah, that would be cutting off my nose to spite my face, as it were. But I don't want him to be successful in implementing his agenda. Not even a little.

good evening...
Here is the thing, Obama got elected on his agenda...If he didn't try to enact it..Well that would be a failure on his part...
He going to rule from the left for the next 4 years..It's a fact of life..
If the GOP doesn't self implode we can change the direction of the country without wishing Failure...Fail...Such a dumb word...

88 cardiacmont  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:38:44pm

My default position with Sotomayor is absolutely against her nomination. That was BEFORE I learned anything about her. I have seen enough of Obama's philosophy to NOT give him the benefit of the doubt, especially with something that is obviously at the core of a statist's political thinking.

The idea that I need to figure out what she believes in before I give her the thumbs down is foreign to me. Obama doesn't need my thumbs up and I'm not volunteering it.

Sitting around waiting to figure out if Obama made a wise decision is a fatality waiting to happen.

89 kynna  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:39:50pm

re: #83 livefreeor die

Rappers on roller skates?
I think I'll stay home and watch the test pattern on my TV.

Your TV has a test pattern?

90 Karridine  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:39:53pm
These are not attractive qualities.

Charles Johnson

Ultimately, it is ATTRACTIVE QUALITIES that form the basis for unity, at any level, in ANY form, for any length of time.

91 NelsFree  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:40:07pm

re: #21 jcm

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

;-P

I always look forward to the "weeping and gnashing of teeth"
/s

92 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:40:20pm

re: #60 calcajun

"If you make your opponent look stupid, you lose the justification for taking him on in the first place." --"Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", John Le Carre.

If you make your opponent look stupid you win the election... unless it's really horribly rigged...

93 Dancing along the light of day  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:40:24pm

On Hugh Hewitt's show tonight, Christopher Hitchens described the nominee's record at "mediocre" and pointed out, that if confirmed 6/9 SCOTUS would be Catholic.

94 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:40:59pm
Criticize policies all you like, and work to defeat politicians you don’t agree with. But wishing out loud for Obama or his Supreme Court nominees to “fail” is mean-spirited, negative, and hands ammunition to your political enemies that they will gladly use.

Democrats sure killed themselves when they wished for Bush to fail.

/

95 JammieWearingFool  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:41:25pm

re: #85 Karridine

Well, maybe.

But another reason Sotomayer was nominated is her record: 60% of her decisions were reversed at the appellate level, on appeal.

If so, that could make her somebody who sides with Obama 60% of the time, plus part of the rest of the decisions...

Seems to me someone with such a rate of reversal is unqualified.

In other words, a hack.

96 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:41:32pm

re: #1 Walter L. Newton

I don't want Sotomayor to fail one bit. I don't want her getting even near the bench.

I am confused by your statements?
Do you want Obama's agenda to be successful and get Sotomayor appointed or do you wish him to FAIL and for Solomayr to not get appointed?

97 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:41:47pm

re: #91 NelsFree

I always look forward to the "weeping and gnashing of teeth"
/s

I hate the ash cloth..messy...
/

98 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:41:59pm

re: #94 loppyd

Democrats sure killed themselves when they wished for Bush to fail.

/

Shhh. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

/

99 AFVetWife  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:42:04pm

re: #63 livefreeor die

I've seen all of these performed live, including "Cats," and I enjoyed them all. Still have cassettes of the soundtracks. Guess I'd better find them on CD soon before my cassettes give out!

100 Zimriel  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:42:26pm

re: #59 danrudy

LOL....
Believe it or not Charles, I agree with you more then 80% (I am using the Sotomayer magic number) of the time.
However, I tend to voice my disagreements much more then the agreements. Echo's dont make for interesting discussions. I learn more from discussions about things I disagree with then I agree with.

Yeah, I'm in that boat too, kinda.

Which is why I scratched my head over "The Sneak" calling me "LGF suckup extraordinaire". I suppose techically, it is extraordinary for suckups to argue so much...

As for this nomination: it's not going to "fail". Obama has 60 Democratic Senators, plus at least the two bailout-supporting "fiscal conservatives" in Maine with their eye on that side of the aisle. There's not going to be a filibuster.

But if we can get about 30 Republicans to vote "nay" on this underwhelming and statist candidate, and to give clear ideological reasons, I'll gladly support that.

101 Bloodnok  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:43:06pm

re: #93 Floral Giraffe

On Hugh Hewitt's show tonight, Christopher Hitchens described the nominee's record at "mediocre" and pointed out, that if confirmed 6/9 SCOTUS would be Catholic.

As long as it doesn't get to two-thirds. Then I'd be worried.

/

102 nordink  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:43:46pm

Sometimes, it think you're the only "media figure" anywhere who gets it, Charles. Your positions are very reasoned and reasonable. If the 'party of the opposition' adopted more of your stances and tone, it would resonate with Americans. Instead, it's dazed and mumbling in the desert. I hope that more people -- independents, republicans, conservatives, anyone who has not drunk the Koolaid -- finds LGF and becomes lizardoid.

103 Racer X  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:44:28pm

Damn that Bush! I want him to die, Die, DIE!

vs.

I want Obama's policies to fail.

104 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:45:10pm

re: #92 anotherindyfilmguy

If you make your opponent look stupid you win the election... unless it's really horribly rigged...


I don't know, the vote for stupid movement seems to be picking up steam...

105 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:45:29pm

re: #103 Racer X

Damn that Bush! I want him to die, Die, DIE!

vs.

I want Obama's policies to fail.

History is an unpopular subject.

106 Bloodnok  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:45:30pm

re: #101 Bloodnok

As long as it doesn't get to two-thirds. Then I'd be worried.

/

Sorry. But then again my posts are always aimed at the lowest common denominator.

107 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:45:34pm

re: #88 cardiacmont

My default position with Sotomayor is absolutely against her nomination. That was BEFORE I learned anything about her. I have seen enough of Obama's philosophy to NOT give him the benefit of the doubt, especially with something that is obviously at the core of a statist's political thinking.

The idea that I need to figure out what she believes in before I give her the thumbs down is foreign to me. Obama doesn't need my thumbs up and I'm not volunteering it.

Sitting around waiting to figure out if Obama made a wise decision is a fatality waiting to happen.

Wow. You're basically saying you don't care about facts, the only thing that matters to you are your prejudices.

Helluva way to go through life. Good luck with that.

108 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:46:16pm

re: #104 brookly red

I don't know, the vote for stupid movement seems to be picking up steam...

I have his t-shirt!

109 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:46:20pm

My $.02:

A man, recently elected promised much: Transparency in government, publishing of bills before he signed them, closing GTMO, listening to those who did not vote for him.

His record: Not so much like his promises.

What about Souter. Didn't he get appointed as a conservative?

Point: As far as I'm feeling these days, it doesn't matter what people headed for high office say at confirmation hearings, they do what they want once safely in the seat of power.

I'm sure we'll hear the right words and the Republican effort to prove an unqualified record will make them look foolish, at best or at worst, leave them accused as racists, even if they are not.

It's now the accepted behavior of the political class. We should be used to it by now, and if we're not happy, our votes sure didn't reflect that we gave a damn.

110 ProUSA  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:46:30pm

re: #38 MandyManners

I hope he fails to change this nation into a second-rate, socialist hell-hole.

I agree. I want America to succeed. I see a lot of negative failure if Obama proceeds unchecked with his plans.

I understand Charles' position on this, but I also hate political nuance. Let's just say what we think. I strongly disagree with most of what Obama and the current bunch of Dems want to do to this country, and I hope they fail in their efforts. I DO NOT hope that America fails in the process.

I hope that Obama grows up, gets his nose bloodied a bit by reality, and listens to some people outside the leftist hordes of socialists he has surrounded himself with his whole life. Maybe his arrogance will diminish and he will be less of the disaster he appears to be at this stage.

111 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:46:39pm

re: #22 livefreeor die

I went to see it and kept waiting to be amazed by "how great" it was.
Seventeen years later I'm still waiting.

I fell asleep. Really.

112 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:47:22pm

re: #95 JammieWearingFool

Seems to me someone with such a rate of reversal is unqualified.

In other words, a hack.

Like I said before, length of time on the bench does not a brilliant legal mind make.

There are plenty of hack judges who have been around forever. It doesn't make them any more qualified.

113 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:48:09pm
114 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:48:56pm

re: #112 loppyd

Like I said before, length of time on the bench does not a brilliant legal mind make.

There are plenty of hack judges who have been around forever. It doesn't make them any more qualified.

A federal judgeship is perfect for a hack. Unless you commit a crime, you keep getting paid till you die.

115 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:49:00pm

re: #108 OldLineTexan

I have his t-shirt!

Stu Pitmann, a man of the people...

116 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:49:10pm

re: #68 Typicalwhitey

Lots of Dems wanted Bush to fail.
Didn't seem to hurt them in the election.

Can you show me a Democrat being quoted as saying, "I want Bush to fail"?

117 hazzyday  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:49:41pm

One difference is

1. I want you to fail
2. I have a better idea, let me tell you about it.

Two different types of people. It's a tough line though. I do want marxist influenced policies to fail. But if they succeed then I don't understand my case well enough to make an influential enough argument. We are programmed to live on the negatives for better or for worse. Rush saying he wants Pres. Obama to fail probably generates the income stream for him that he is looking for. He is in the business.

a better approach would be "Don't be an Obama victim" . My sense of Pres. Obama now is that on the face of things he is drifting to the center like Clinton and will try and get his own important stuff done on the margin.

One life thing I have noticed lately is the sheer number of actors and actresses and local news anchor people in concert trying to socially educate me on personal issues. They are my new parents as the old ones have apparently failed to be socially conscious.

Green Spin
Gay spin
Cheney spin
Obama spin

118 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:49:45pm

re: #21 jcm

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

;-P

jcm -

Brutal as it sounds - that is how SERIOUS WARS are WON. Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court is NOT a serious war, merely a skirmish, with "OUR" odds of winning somewhere out of Alice in Wonderland, apologies to Mr. Carroll.

-S-

119 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:50:06pm

re: #100 Zimriel


Seriously, I defintiely post less for things I agree with...I don't get personal fulfillment out of updings. But, then again, I am not trying to get downdinged either. I just am more prone to be pulled into an active role of I disagree.

Take this topic for example. There are folks who do NOT want Sotomayor to become appointed because of her liberal tendencies.
It is ok to say "I hope she doesnt get appointed" and people will agree with you. But state it differently. Say, "I hope Obama FAILS to be successful in getting Sotomayor appointed" and all of a sudden you are hoping for a catastrophe on this country and are unpatrioitc.
I am at a loss to understand the reasoning.

120 Lynn B.  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:51:06pm

Re: the question of whether Obama went negative (see previous thread), from his acceptance speech last August:

Laying out what he characterized as the state of the union after eight years of Republican leadership, Obama painted an America “at one of those defining moments — a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil and the American promise has been threatened once more,” he said.

“Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes, and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay and tuition that’s beyond your reach.”

The blame, he said, lay squarely with “a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.”

My memory may not be what it once was, but I do recall that wanting BUSH to fail was often not perceived as petty, vindictive or weak. In fact, I had to sit through far too many conversations in which it was considered witty, clever and insightful.

That said, I agree that these tactics will not work for the GOP or conservatives today. It may not seem fair, but it's a fact. And the sooner we figure that out, the better for us and the better for America.

121 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:52:42pm

My take on it is this:
People in general respect scrappers and fighters. The left has scrapped and yelled and screamed and everything else with the help of most of the media. The right has generally become conciliatory "lest they offend" and have lost in droves because they are more interested in "being loved" by the press or the opposition than they are in being right and fighting, scrapping etc for their principles.

Reagan for all his ability to take it form the left also fought back against them. Many current "leadership voices" of the GOP talk about "compromise" with the opposition as the only way and have never accepted that no matter what they do they are looked on as the enemy by the press and will be treated as such by them except when doing as they wish.

I want Obama to fail. I do not want America to fail. If the O' succeeds America will fail or be seriously damaged for years to come.

I want to see the Republicans stand up and fight for power the way the left has. I really want to see it. If they won't fight when it is easy they won;t fight when it is hard. If they won't fight to win they won't be elected. Compromising only leads to the enemy taking over. The right can only be portrayed as evil for so long and the public in general can only be fooled for so long.
Reagan was a fighter, Palin is a fighter. McCain and Powell and Ridge etc are compromisers who are far more akin to Neville Chamberlain in dealing with the domestic opposition than Palin is anywhere near close to Winston Churchill. Yet Palin was what brought the crowds out in the election in spite of, and possibly because of the enormous outlandish hit pieces done in the media against her. In my opinion this past election has removed the blinders from many in this country, not all, but many.
/2 centavos.

122 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:52:43pm

re: #116 ShanghaiEd

Can you show me a Democrat being quoted as saying, "I want Bush to fail"?


Um, James Carville was quoted as saying that on the morning of 9/11 before the towers were hit. It understandably was lost in the news

one of many links
[Link: www.politicsdaily.com...]

123 Zimriel  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:52:55pm

re: #119 danrudy

There are folks who do NOT want Sotomayor to become appointed because of her liberal tendencies.
It is ok to say "I hope she doesnt get appointed" and people will agree with you. But state it differently. Say, "I hope Obama FAILS to be successful in getting Sotomayor appointed" and all of a sudden you are hoping for a catastrophe on this country and are unpatrioitc.
I am at a loss to understand the reasoning.

The point is tone. The "fail" talk may work for you and for a close circle of friends sounding off at the watering hole. But take it to a public audience and it just sounds bad.

124 hazzyday  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:53:46pm

re: #101 Bloodnok

As long as it doesn't get to two-thirds. Then I'd be worried.

/

I'll only worry when it gets to 20 thirtyieth Catholic.

125 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:54:29pm

re: #104 brookly red

I don't know, the vote for stupid movement seems to be picking up steam...

Start prosecuting election fraud and making it stick. (yeah, it's a pipe dream)

126 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:54:35pm

I recommend that people read her decisions. In the case of the New Haven firefighters she joined in (not clear if she authored) a summary order which was no more than three paragraphs long and in essence told the Plaintiffs to pound sand without any basis or opinion to justify why.

This was either laziness, stupidity or simply a way to broom the Plaintiffs claims without having to author a decision which could end up being used as precedent in the future.

It's very rare for a case which has been essentially dismissed on summary order to be granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court, which could have been a motivating factor.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court granted cert and oral arguments were heard as they should have been at the 2nd Circuit level.

127 jaunte  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:54:50pm

re: #120 Lynn B.


That said, I agree that these tactics will not work for the GOP or conservatives today. It may not seem fair, but it's a fact. And the sooner we figure that out, the better for us and the better for America.

Exactly. Politics and life are unfair. Whining about how the Democrats get to say 'fail' while Republicans are held to a higher standard is just a waste of time.

128 Zimriel  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:54:57pm

re: #121 anotherindyfilmguy

My take on it is this:
People in general respect scrappers and fighters.
...
I want Obama to fail. I do not want America to fail. If the O' succeeds America will fail or be seriously damaged for years to come.
...
Reagan was a fighter, Palin is a fighter. McCain and Powell and Ridge etc are compromisers who are far more akin to Neville Chamberlain in dealing with the domestic opposition than Palin is anywhere near close to Winston Churchill. Yet Palin was what brought the crowds out in the election in spite of, and possibly because of the enormous outlandish hit pieces done in the media against her. In my opinion this past election has removed the blinders from many in this country, not all, but many.
/2 centavos.


Palin hasn't said that she hopes Obama fails, though. I don't recall the word "fail" in any of her speeches.

129 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:55:15pm

re: #84 Racer X

I am in agreement with Charles on the point that if those on the right go bat-shit crazy on Sotomayor it will make them look like idiots and turn off a lot of potential allies later on. Pick your battles. Sotomayor is the bait. Don't touch this one. Wait for Obama to push the really radical one and fight that. There is no way in hell Sotomayor gets turned down. First Hispanic woman? Done.

Sad part is it's always "Wait for the next one." Same argument with the gang of 14 and the confirmation of Bush's appointees to the bench.

And, by the way, do you think subsequent appointees will be any less "positioned" to be likewise as untouchables? They will also be female and/or minorities, and will not match who is on the court now. I'm sure Axelrod and Emmanual are on it already, with 7.5 year plan in their folder.

We're screwed. Can't argue on logic or merit or concepts any longer. That horse is out of the barn. All "we" get to use is "feelings" and that's the domain of the Left, on which conservatives are not allowed to encroach, as they will be vilified as hypocrites, or told "since you haven't been here before, you can't come in and play." Net result: No where to find a chink in the armor.

130 NelsFree  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:55:29pm

re: #84 Racer X

I am in agreement with Charles on the point that if those on the right go bat-shit crazy on Sotomayor it will make them look like idiots and turn off a lot of potential allies later on. Pick your battles. Sotomayor is the bait. Don't touch this one. Wait for Obama to push the really radical one and fight that. There is no way in hell Sotomayor gets turned down. First Hispanic woman? Done.

The Right does not have to go "any kind" of crazy on her. Merely publicize her decisions, findings, and IN FULL CONTEXT statements, and criticize her on FACTS.

131 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:55:50pm

[Link: www.pointoflaw.com...]

More on Sotomayor's predictably unpredictable mediocrity.

And a statement from one of her classmates at Yale law school. (Emphasis is his)


A word about race, etc. I actually think there are hundreds, likely thousands, of people with the judicial temperament and intellectual ability to be very good Supreme Court justices. Picking among THE QUALIFIED could quite legitimately be done using "affirmative action" standards -- thereby ensuring that various parts (geographic, ethnic, sexual) of the nation know they are not excluded from consideration. Partly symbolic positions such as these are precisely ones where representativity is relevant. Of course I am talking about using symbolic factors (race, sex, state of residence, etc.)IN ADDITION TO merit, not INSTEAD OF merit. Whether Judge Sotomayor has the temperament and the intelligence for the job is indeed the question -- but I do think her ethnicity and great personal story are legitimate plusses.
132 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:56:26pm

Charles, Rush didn't backpedal on what he said - he said very clearly what he means when he first made that statement, and you keep getting it wrong:

January 16, 2009
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

133 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:56:43pm

re: #116 ShanghaiEd

Can you show me a Democrat being quoted as saying, "I want Bush to fail"?

You're right...they just wished him arrested and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

134 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:57:20pm
135 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:57:53pm

re: #128 Zimriel

Palin hasn't said that she hopes Obama fails, though. I don't recall the word "fail" in any of her speeches.

She wouldn't say such a thing. She's not that kind of person. She's far less bitter than most pols (less than me as well, for that matter).

136 AFVetWife  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:59:24pm

re: #113 Iron Fist

Regarding the guns and ammo thing: My husband has always been a gun owner, hunter, military-trained shooter, etc. I have always believed in Second Amendment rights, but never owned or shot a gun. However, we are now both getting our concealed carry permits in Ohio, and I will learn how to handle a gun. One never knows...

137 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:59:24pm

re: #123 Zimriel

The point is tone. The "fail" talk may work for you and for a close circle of friends sounding off at the watering hole. But take it to a public audience and it just sounds bad.

True,
so what Limabaugh is guilty of is failure to pander and say things "nicely".
Perhaps he would have gained wider acceptance if would have said (like Carville) I hope for Obama not to succeed....LOL
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the way Limbaugh stated it. He was succint and to the point and didnt pussy foot around it. He just said it the way he believed it. THe only reason it didnt play to the general public was becasue the media reported it as Limbaugh hopes the country fails...which of course, is not what he said.

138 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:59:39pm

re: #127 jaunte

Exactly. Politics and life are unfair. Whining about how the Democrats get to say 'fail' while Republicans are held to a higher standard is just a waste of time.

Not only a waste of time, but untrue. Rush Limbaugh has been one of the most important Republicans since Reagan, arguably the most important considering the asset he was for a long long time. Carville at the time of 9/11 was a has-been. Limbaugh was/is a household name. Carville not so much.

139 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:59:41pm
140 FrogMarch  Wed, May 27, 2009 6:59:42pm

I don't hate Rush and I certainly don't want his kidneys to fail, but I think Rush has gotten lazy.

I also don't care for his "just trust me" shtick. I'm not thrilled when Rush mocks Barney Frank's homosexuality. Why not mock Barney Frank's amazing stupidity and breath-taking economic ineptness?

141 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:00:00pm

re: #84 Racer X

I am in agreement with Charles on the point that if those on the right go bat-shit crazy on Sotomayor it will make them look like idiots and turn off a lot of potential allies later on. Pick your battles. Sotomayor is the bait. Don't touch this one. Wait for Obama to push the really radical one and fight that. There is no way in hell Sotomayor gets turned down. First Hispanic woman? Done.

It's all the more reason to fight. Fight it with reason and logic. Draw out all the racist remarks and drag out everything she did that was overturned by the court she seeks to be on. Heck, drag in the current sitting justices and ask what they think of her legal qualifications.

McCarthy had his moment where he was perceived as going to far and his inquiries were broken off. The use of race in politics needs that moment as well and the shoving of her race as a factor well before any hearings could be that moment.

142 jcm  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:00:44pm

re: #118 Dr. Shalit

jcm -

Brutal as it sounds - that is how SERIOUS WARS are WON. Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court is NOT a serious war, merely a skirmish, with "OUR" odds of winning somewhere out of Alice in Wonderland, apologies to Mr. Carroll.

-S-

I was being sarcastic and snarky in response to another comment.

You are absoluletely correct, see my re: #82 jcm for a more "reasonable" response.

This nomination is not a hill to die on, it won't change the complexion of the court.

143 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:00:48pm

re: #134 Iron Fist

Racist! :-þ

ALmost no words left in the vocabulary, eh? :)

144 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:00:57pm

re: #116 ShanghaiEd

Can you show me a Democrat being quoted as saying, "I want Bush to fail"?

Poll result (way down in the reading, sorry) 51% of Democrats did not want the surge to fail; extrapolate that up to 49% did.

Op-ed piece, FWIW

And, finally, someone excusing James Carville for saying what amounts to the same thing, oddly using the same spin Rush ssupporters use

145 Dadaist  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:01:08pm

Some people are so relentlessly stupid that I sometimes suspect that a clown gave out free lobomies with the facepainting at one of their childhood birthday parties. Sotomayor is, like it or not, about as good a nominee as Conservatives can reasonably hope for when:

A) The retiring Judge was, despite who nominated him, a moderate Liberal.
B) There's a Democratic President doing the choosing.
C) That President has a 65% plus approval rating.
D) The House has a large Democratic majority.
E) The Senate also has a large Democratic majority.

Obama could have Leon Trotsky dug up and posted to Washington from Mexico and get his mouldering corpse onto the Supreme Court as things currently stand. Instead he's putting someone on who seems to have views not a million miles from those of the Judge she's replacing. This is not a fight worth expending political capital on at the moment. It won't be possible to paint Sotomayor as some kind of moonbat except amongst the wilder eyed sections of the GOP's own base.So the GOP needs to avoid looking like its hysterical and paranoid or just out to wreck.

Put Sotomayor through a serious checking procedure in the Senate. If something actually significant and damaging emerges, all bets are off. But if nothing does, then there's really no partisan benefit in being seen to play ugly partisan politics. The GOP shouldn't let its stupid wing set the tone.

146 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:01:33pm
147 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:01:37pm

re: #132 tedzilla99

Even his own staff was nervously laughing when he said, "I hope he fails."

Because they knew how badly that was going to play.

148 hazzyday  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:02:21pm

re: #94 loppyd

Democrats sure killed themselves when they wished for Bush to fail.

/

They had an assist in cognitive dissonance in the MSM. The bush hating was like a virus that spread among the infected. They were fueled by weak school systems that have been churning out green gropers for a few decades now.

A pro bigot democrat will lie to that they every said they hated bush while at the same time hiding the sign behind their back til you leave.

I will be interested to read how GWB writes his books.

149 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:02:21pm

re: #139 Iron Fist

When they weren't cheerleading for him to be assassinated. Who was it that put the picture of Bush up with the caption "Snipers Wanted"? I don't remember the person, just the incident. I'm surprised the guy didn't get a hard talking to from some entirely humorless Secret Service agents.

I was too lazy to do web searches for burnings in effigy, or...hung with a NOOSE! pictures, as I recall there were.

My bad.

150 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:02:27pm

re: #132 tedzilla99


I am not sure why you got down dinged. THe transcript is pretty clear. I hope people wont let facts get in the way of their preconcieved notions about what was or wasnt said.

151 NelsFree  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:02:38pm

re: #105 OldLineTexan

History is an unpopular subject.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

152 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:02:49pm

re: #128 Zimriel

Palin hasn't said that she hopes Obama fails, though. I don't recall the word "fail" in any of her speeches.

Obama wasn't elected yet while she was in the national spotlight either and doesn't speak on the air 5 days a week like Rush or 7 days like the O seems to.

153 Velvet Elvis  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:03:03pm

re: #116 ShanghaiEd

Can you show me a Democrat being quoted as saying, "I want Bush to fail"?

It was well into his second term that Democrats really soured on him. At the start of his administration and particularly after 9/11 Bush with fairly popular with both Democratic voters and lawmakers. It took six years for Bush to gain the kind of animosity Obama is now seeing after just as few months.

154 Typicalwhitey  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:03:44pm

re: #116 ShanghaiEd

Would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" asked an August 2006 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. The result? Ninety percent of Republicans wanted Bush to succeed, versus 7 percent who did not. Among independents, 63 percent wanted the President to succeed, compared with 34 percent who did not. What about Democrats? Forty percent wanted him to succeed, but 51 percent did not.
[Link: www.humanevents.com...]

155 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:03:47pm

re: #151 NelsFree

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Quit bringing up facts....it squelches the discussion.

156 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:04:14pm

re: #145 Dadaist

Some people are so relentlessly stupid that I sometimes suspect that a clown gave out free lobomies with the facepainting at one of their childhood birthday parties. Sotomayor is, like it or not, about as good a nominee as Conservatives can reasonably hope for when:

A) The retiring Judge was, despite who nominated him, a moderate Liberal.
B) There's a Democratic President doing the choosing.
C) That President has a 65% plus approval rating.
D) The House has a large Democratic majority.
E) The Senate also has a large Democratic majority.

Obama could have Leon Trotsky dug up and posted to Washington from Mexico and get his mouldering corpse onto the Supreme Court as things currently stand. Instead he's putting someone on who seems to have views not a million miles from those of the Judge she's replacing. This is not a fight worth expending political capital on at the moment. It won't be possible to paint Sotomayor as some kind of moonbat except amongst the wilder eyed sections of the GOP's own base.So the GOP needs to avoid looking like its hysterical and paranoid or just out to wreck.

Put Sotomayor through a serious checking procedure in the Senate. If something actually significant and damaging emerges, all bets are off. But if nothing does, then there's really no partisan benefit in being seen to play ugly partisan politics. The GOP shouldn't let its stupid wing set the tone.

Why, as a conservative, would I want a another liberal judge on the bench? You can go on an on about how she is not as bad as... or as good as... or she is going to get the nomination anyway... well, that's all fine and dandy.

I'm not hysterical or paranoid. There is no denying that she is a liberal, I don't want her on the SC bench. Sounds simple to me.

Did that sound hysterical or paranoid to you?

157 researchok  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:04:29pm

re: #107 Charles

Wow. You're basically saying you don't care about facts, the only thing that matters to you are your prejudices.

Helluva way to go through life. Good luck with that.

It's sad to realize just how many people refuse to understand that what made this nation great is the American 'can do' attitude. America and Americans succeeded because Americans believed they could do it better. Whatever the project, whatever the endeavor, Americans could always do it better. That truth is especially true of our politics.

Obama may not be everyone's cup of tea, but when it is all said and done,
Republicans need to offer a better vision for America and Americans- and that won't be accomplished by tearing things down or apart.

If Obama and the Democrats are destined to fail, let them fail on their own.. No one ever needed help falling down a flight of stairs.

If Republicans are to succeed it is because they will offer the nation a better future- and that ought to be the first order of business. That isn't to say they ought not be a loyal opposition- they should- but opposition means to challenge the government to do a better job and not to simply destroy.

The Dems have done that. Republicans can be better- and that is what they need to show Americans.

158 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:05:52pm

re: #153 Conservative Moonbat

It was well into his second term that Democrats really soured on him. At the start of his administration and particularly after 9/11 Bush with fairly popular with both Democratic voters and lawmakers. It took six years for Bush to gain the kind of animosity Obama is now seeing after just as few months.

I must have dreamed that whole "stole the election from Algore" thing.

/

159 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:06:00pm

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I also think making a racial issue out of this is distasteful.

I agree it is distasteful. But the person who made a racial issue out of it was Sotomayor herself.

She brought it up throughout her career. Obama brought it up when he nominated her. And now, what, his political opponents are forbidden to mention the very topic that Obama and his appointee harp on endlessly?

No one but ignorable rank racists are claiming that she isn't qualified because of her "race." The people on the conservative side who are bringing up race are doing so in response to her raising the topic, and her stating in so many words that she thinks being a member of a certain ethnicity elevates her above others in some way.

I for one would gladly never mention race again, but it is people like Sotomayor that that simply won't let the issue rest.

160 Oldasdirt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:06:01pm

RUSH!,Next time just say"I want the policies of Obamanation
to fail!"

It sounds so much sweeter and kinder.
Whatever.

161 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:06:42pm

re: #153 Conservative Moonbat

It was well into his second term that Democrats really soured on him. At the start of his administration and particularly after 9/11 Bush with fairly popular with both Democratic voters and lawmakers. It took six years for Bush to gain the kind of animosity Obama is now seeing after just as few months.

6 years? Did the war in Iraq begin well after 2003 or did I miss a large period of time?

There were plenty of protests...I recall Code Pink, and Cindy Sheehan and company a little bit earlier in the time line, or am I wrong?

162 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:06:42pm
163 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:06:46pm
164 FrogMarch  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:06:53pm

re: #38 MandyManners

I hope he fails to change this nation into a second-rate, socialist hell-hole.

GM: The government is telling the bond holders to fuck off (they only get 10%), while the Obama administration gives 40% ownership to the UAW and 50% ownership to the government.
oh sing hallelujah!

165 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:06:58pm

re: #147 Charles

Even his own staff was nervously laughing when he said, "I hope he fails."

Because they knew how badly that was going to play.

Probably because they knew, as did he, that no matter how eloquently he said it, the left would pick out those 4 words. And, by concentrating on those 4 words, which he said AFTER he stated he wanted his policies to not succeed, that demonstrates his point perfectly: that the analysis of what he says will not be honest. I can give you the entire monologue from that day, and you'd see that he is talking strictly about his policies and liberalism. But everyone is stuck on fail and can't see the forest for that one tree. And it's disappointing to see it here.

166 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:06:58pm

re: #122 danrudy

Um, James Carville was quoted as saying that on the morning of 9/11 before the towers were hit. It understandably was lost in the news

one of many links
[Link: www.politicsdaily.com...]

Dan: I can't find a copy of Carville's actual speech that puts those words into context, but I did find a few more sentences:

"I don’t care if people like him or not, just so they don’t vote for him and his party. That is all I care about. I hope he doesn’t succeed, but I am a partisan Democrat."

I'm open to reading the whole speech if you can find it, but from that segment it sounds like Carville was saying he hoped Republicans didn't "succeed" in getting elected. Certainly doesn't sound out of line to me.

167 ProUSA  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:07:01pm

re: #132 tedzilla99

Exactly. No back pedaling.

168 Lynn B.  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:07:41pm

re: #150 danrudy

I am not sure why you got down dinged. THe transcript is pretty clear. I hope people wont let facts get in the way of their preconcieved notions about what was or wasnt said.

The transcript says what it says. My downding, anyway, was for this part:

Charles, Rush didn't backpedal on what he said - he said very clearly what he means when he first made that statement, and you keep getting it wrong:

No, Charles doesn't keep getting it wrong. He's got it exactly right.

169 FrogMarch  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:08:52pm

re: #159 zombie

ding!

170 Zimriel  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:09:12pm

re: #145 Dadaist

Some people are so relentlessly stupid that I sometimes suspect that a clown gave out free lobomies with the facepainting at one of their childhood birthday parties.

Pennywise? Is that you?

171 anchors_aweigh  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:09:20pm

re: #119 danrudy

The entire "the right hopes the country fails" meme is bunk and the purveyors know it. Did half the country suddenly decide to commit treason? I don't think so. It's pure propaganda. Big Lie stuff.

Nobody has to hope Obama's policies fail. The policies will fail because they are just rehashed Great Society liberal wet dreams. You can't tax and spend your way to prosperity and you can't reward irresponsible behavior. Obama's policies do exactly that.

172 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:10:12pm

re: #168 Lynn B.

No, Charles doesn't keep getting it wrong. He's got it exactly right.

Backpedaling means he tried to go back and change what he said at first. Sorry, but the transcript is crystal clear that that isn't the case.

173 Velvet Elvis  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:10:16pm

re: #154 Typicalwhitey

Would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" asked an August 2006 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. The result? Ninety percent of Republicans wanted Bush to succeed, versus 7 percent who did not. Among independents, 63 percent wanted the President to succeed, compared with 34 percent who did not. What about Democrats? Forty percent wanted him to succeed, but 51 percent did not.
[Link: www.humanevents.com...]

Polling data is different than a Sr. spokesperson getting up and saying it. The majority of Democrats want weed legalized too but nobody is going to say a word about it.

174 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:10:53pm

re: #168 Lynn B.

No, Charles doesn't keep getting it wrong. He's got it exactly right.

Wow...we've devolved to "Ding Wars!"

175 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:11:26pm

re: #156 Walter L. Newton

Why, as a conservative, would I want a another liberal judge on the bench? You can go on an on about how she is not as bad as... or as good as... or she is going to get the nomination anyway... well, that's all fine and dandy.

I'm not hysterical or paranoid. There is no denying that she is a liberal, I don't want her on the SC bench. Sounds simple to me.

Did that sound hysterical or paranoid to you?

No, Walter, it does not. Dadaist is simply trying to give us a way forward which deals with the facts on the ground. Barring some major blunder, Sotomayor is going to be confirmed. Given that fact, we can't oppose her too much or we just end up looking helpless. We should do our best to get her full record out and explain our positions. Beyond that, there isn't much we can do.

176 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:11:32pm

re: #154 Typicalwhitey

Would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?" asked an August 2006 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. The result? Ninety percent of Republicans wanted Bush to succeed, versus 7 percent who did not. Among independents, 63 percent wanted the President to succeed, compared with 34 percent who did not. What about Democrats? Forty percent wanted him to succeed, but 51 percent did not.
[Link: www.humanevents.com...]

We weren't talking about nameless individuals, but people with a profile in their party, such as Limbaugh. Do any high-profile Democrats come to mind, who said that?

177 Zimriel  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:11:45pm

re: #174 Curt

Wow...we've devolved to "Ding Wars!"

I see your ding is as big as mine...

178 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:11:52pm
179 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:12:38pm

re: #168 Lynn B.

How did he get it right? Rush clearly was talking about policies and has neverf backpedalled?
What he stated 3,5,7 days later is exactly the same thing he stated in at the time of the famous "fail "comment.

180 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:13:12pm

re: #177 Zimriel

I see your ding is as big as mine...

YES! One Person One DING! (Until ACORN sneaks a few dead lizards into this sacred place!)

181 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:13:39pm

re: #174 Curt

Wow...we've devolved to "Ding Wars!"


had to upding you for that...

Does that make me a dingbat?

182 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:14:17pm

Here's the next part of that same monologue from Jan. 16:

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

183 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:14:35pm

re: #153 Conservative Moonbat

It was well into his second term that Democrats really soured on him. At the start of his administration and particularly after 9/11 Bush with fairly popular with both Democratic voters and lawmakers. It took six years for Bush to gain the kind of animosity Obama is now seeing after just as few months.

There were anti-war protests BEFORE the U.S. went into Afghanistan.
The hate was there all along.

184 Zimriel  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:14:44pm

re: #181 danrudy

had to upding you for that...

Does that make me a dingbat?

I've been calling 'em "dinger-berries"...

185 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:15:16pm

re: #181 danrudy

had to upding you for that...

Does that make me a dingbat?

Only if you're from Louisville....and your keyboard is in pieces.

186 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:15:20pm

THANKS CHARLES; you summed up what i was trying to say in my posts on the last thread much better than i did

187 Gus  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:15:30pm

re: #145 Dadaist

Well said. The fact is that Barack Obama is the President of the United States and he was elected to make the nomination for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. We all knew this was coming and the time has come. Obama could have very well chosen a far left candidate for this position but instead chose a moderate liberal with no record of extremist ideologies other than a couple of references related to a so called Latina experience.

At this point it is up to congress to make the final decision resulting in her confirmation. She has the credentials and the background required for a place in SCOTUS -- regardless of how I feel. Ironically there are pro-choice elements expressing a dissatisfaction with her judicial record and was recently reported in the New York Times.

This should provide a moment of introspection for those that refused to vote for John McCain because they viewed him as a RINO or a liberal. Had McCain been in the White House a more traditional candidate would have been chosen. Again, Sotomayor isn't the most left candidate Obama could have chosen. We may very well see a more activist judge when it comes time to replace the retiring justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

188 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:15:51pm

re: #166 ShanghaiEd

I'm open to reading the whole speech if you can find it, but from that segment it sounds like Carville was saying he hoped Republicans didn't "succeed" in getting elected. Certainly doesn't sound out of line to me.

And even if he did, Rush Limbaugh was/is a major major Republican player. How many millions of listeners tune in to hear him? On the other hand, how many people know what James carville is saying on a given day? If Limbaugh is a ten in terms of name recognition, what would Carville have been at the time of his remark? No comparison in star power between Limbaugh and Carville.

189 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:17:02pm

re: #171 anchors_aweigh

Exactly....the whole hoopla over Limbaugh's comment is just total BS Bunk.

190 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:17:41pm

re: #183 IslandLibertarian

There were anti-war protests BEFORE the U.S. went into Afghanistan.
The hate was there all along.

What percentage of liberals were the Afghanistan protesters at that time?

191 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:19:18pm

BTW -

Let's think about how brilliant our president is and what he said he would use as for criteria in his selection of a SCOTUS justice.

[Link: www.forbes.com...]

Here we learn that Obama placed a premium on "empathy"

"We need somebody who's got the heart to recognize--the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Let's think about this for a moment and then think about the nomination he has just made.

The SCOTUS deals exclusively with matters of law. They never rule "guilty" or "not guilty". Instead they are asked to rule on "what does the law mean?" or "was the law properly applied in this case?"

Why does making such decisions require the "empathy" that Obama described?

Why?

Isn't justice supposed to be blind? Doesn't justice place the rich man and the poor woman on equal footing in a courthouse? How does the president contemplate a ruling being changed via the "empathy" he describes? Will certain actions of prosecutors be unconstitutional when they are used against black defendants but constitutional when used against white ones? Will asians have to abide by laws in a manner different from hispanics?

What can this "empathy" mean in the context of a supreme court case? How can it work? Would the Miranda decision have been made differently if Miranda had a vagina? Does the second amendment, as now understood, provide a right to own a gun only to white males? Black transexuals? Chinese bigamists?

The idea of "empathy" in a Supreme Court justice seems appealing to the ignorant - judges should be understanding, after all. But where that actually matters (and makes a difference) is in the lower courts where guilt and innocence are determined or where a lawsuit is first heard.

Otherwise it is stupid populism and makes for bad appointments.

192 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:19:27pm

re: #190 Flyers1974

What percentage of liberals were the Afghanistan protesters at that time?

A very small percentage. Most had been temporarily shocked into sanity.

193 iceman1960  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:19:38pm

Rush backpeddling? He explained it from the get go.

194 Velvet Elvis  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:19:40pm

re: #161 Curt

6 years? Did the war in Iraq begin well after 2003 or did I miss a large period of time?

There were plenty of protests...I recall Code Pink, and Cindy Sheehan and company a little bit earlier in the time line, or am I wrong?

Most people who were against the invasion of Iraq supported the war for the sake of the troops once we were in there. Hardly anyone wanted the war effort to fail once it started. Being against a single policy is different than wanting Bush to fail as a president.

195 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:20:03pm

re: #188 Flyers1974

And even if he did, Rush Limbaugh was/is a major major Republican player. How many millions of listeners tune in to hear him? On the other hand, how many people know what James carville is saying on a given day? If Limbaugh is a ten in terms of name recognition, what would Carville have been at the time of his remark? No comparison in star power between Limbaugh and Carville.

Carville is a major player. He's been at it for years.

Just because he doesn't get out and get his own talk show, doens't make him less of a player in the arena.

On top of that, isn't it interesting how the "leader" of the conservative movement is a business man.

My question: Just who are the Republican leaders? Sux to have to say it, but they are not trying hard enough to get unfrozen in the media. That's good news for the Dems, and an albatross to wear for the Republican/Conservative side until a real leader comes to the for.

196 JustMyView  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:20:07pm

re: #141 anotherindyfilmguy


[snip] . . . and drag out everything she did that was overturned by the court she seeks to be on.

[snip]

We need to get straight about this reversal rate issue. First, a decision can only be reversed if it is heard by a higher court. Since Sotomayor is already an appellate court judge, the only higher court is the Supreme Court. Tom Goldstein, who writes Scotusblog, was just on TV saying that the SC hears 1% of the cases submitted to it for consideration and overturns about 75% of those decisions.

Of all the decisions Sotomayor has made, six have been reviewed by the SC and three reversed, a reversal rate of 50%. By this measure, Justice Alito had a reversal rate of 100%. Two of the cases he decided as a lower court judge were reviewed by the Supremes, and both decisions were reversed.

If all of a judge's decisions were reviewed and the reversal rate were 75%, we'd be in trouble. But negative decisions on appellate court cases are, according to Goldstein, absolutely normal. It is, after all, the fact that they are difficult cases involving legal uncertainty that makes them appellate court cases in the first place.

197 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:20:14pm

red wings win

198 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:20:32pm

re: #190 Flyers1974

What percentage of liberals were the Afghanistan protesters at that time?

They were the hard left, code pink types....I can't give you a % but the "Selected not Elected" hate was re-channeled into the anti-war schtick.

199 NelsFree  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:20:38pm

re: #176 ShanghaiEd

see my #151

200 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:21:22pm

Ah, yes, something must have happened to me, too, because people I agree with on one subject or two or three suddenly find out I don't agree on every single other thing.

Some theories:

He's got a moonbat girlfriend, and he's p***y-whipped.

A heavy object fell on his head.

He's off his meds, or his meds are off, or he needs more meds, or he's smoking something.

CAIR/ACLU/SPLC/DNC/CPA got to him. He's been bribed. Or threatened. Or they slipped something in his coffee.

I believe I've seen each and every one of these brilliant surmises applied to Charles, too, at one point or another.

Surprise, people! Just because we agree about terrorism being a problem doesn't mean we agree about anything else, including the best way to fight terrorism.

Some of us are interested in the truth, wherever it leads. Others are stuck on simple.

fiat ueritas, ruat caelum

201 AFVetWife  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:21:48pm

Ladies and gentlemen: it's been fun tonight. AFVet is in Houston on business, so I've had more time than usual to enjoy the banter. Howerver, it's now past my bedtime here in Ohio; so I'll say goodbye until next time. May you all have pleasant dreams, and may God watch over you all!

202 Lynn B.  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:22:41pm

re: #165 tedzilla99

Probably because they knew, as did he, that no matter how eloquently he said it, the left would pick out those 4 words. And, by concentrating on those 4 words, which he said AFTER he stated he wanted his policies to not succeed, that demonstrates his point perfectly: that the analysis of what he says will not be honest. I can give you the entire monologue from that day, and you'd see that he is talking strictly about his policies and liberalism. But everyone is stuck on fail and can't see the forest for that one tree. And it's disappointing to see it here.

Perhaps you should go back and read what you posted again.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I got a request here ... My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance. Why? They didn't give Bush a chance..."

See? That was before the words "plans" or "politics" ever came up (and I can't find the word "policies" anywhere in there).

... So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) ... I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

He's the one who said he would be "honored" if they picked out those four little words. He's the one who concentrated on them. He's the one who said he wanted that to be the sound bite that echoed around the world.

Hard to spin it any other way.

203 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:23:00pm

re: #158 OldLineTexan

I must have dreamed that whole "stole the election from Algore" thing.

/

I wonder what would have happened if Obama beat McCain by the same margin as Bush over Gore. In fact, I've seen posters on this website, one today in fact, allege that Obama stole the election because of Acorn.

204 FrogMarch  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:23:18pm

re: #178 Iron Fist

And he is just getting started. It is really quite frightening in its way. We're going to have at least 3 1/2 more years of this. Possibly Probably more, if the Republicans can't get their shit together.

Indeed.
Somehow the democrats think that business sucking leaches labor unions are the answer to our economic woes, so we need more of them. Somehow no matter what the economic reality and data show - the dems live, eat, sleep, breathe and dream of new ways to tax. All while lying and saying "95% of you will get a tax cut & "we are only going to tax the rich" My ass. The "rich" already pay too much and the combination of unions and high taxes are going to kill-off the private sector. ooo government-controlled-everything to the rescue. Amazing how that works.

205 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:23:43pm

re: #166 ShanghaiEd

perhaps...open to interpretation. Of course, one has o wonder why Carville felt it necessary to rush back into the room after hearing about the 9/11 attacks and say "disregard everything we just said! This changes everything. " If he as talking merely about the elections.

However, I don't think what Limbaugh said is open for interpretation. THe whole transcript is available and quite clear.

206 hazzyday  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:23:49pm

re: #159 zombie

The local news here last night had interviews of proud Hispanics and why this choice was such a great thing for Hispanics. Inspiring to them. I always think this is a weakness in a person. Something you can pander to them forever on and they will never get over it til they get religious.

I met the young troubled black man who acquired hope in the country when Pres Obama was elected. Though it's running counter to my thought process, some people are getting value out of these things. I don't see though how that type of trend can continue in politics without breaking down along the lines that have been etched.

I would now, never vote on race. I've met many people though who handicap themselves as victims based on their minority status. I don't think those types of people are ever good leaders.

Once on the national stage one has to serve the nation.

I would point out Ron Sims the new HuD undersecretary? from Seattle is a good afro american leader in this manner. Though I disagree with his positions.

207 Dadaist  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:24:02pm

re: #156 Walter L. Newton
I'm not hysterical or paranoid. There is no denying that she is a liberal, I don't want her on the SC bench. Sounds simple to me.

Did that sound hysterical or paranoid to you?

No, that doesn't sound hysterical or paranoid to me. And after a thorough and fair Senate evaluation I would expect many non-hysterical and non-paranoid Senators to vote against her for much that reason.

However, there is a difference between that attitude and the kind of ranting and bile spitting which some people on the right have been doing. The fact is, the GOP lost the election. Not only that but the President is currently very popular and both the House and Senate have large Democratic majorities. Sotomayor would not be near my shortlist for the Supreme Court in the very unlikely chance that anyone ever asks me to make a nomination. But it's not up to me. It's up to the Democratic administration. And I can't see how we can reasonably expect anyone better from them.

The choice is not between Sotomayor and your favoured candidate or mine. It's between Sotomayor and somebody else chosen by this President and this Senate. In the world as it really exists, this is about as good a choice as we can reasonably hope for those people to make. (Assuming of course that no substantially damaging revelations come out of the Senate hearings).

There are some on the internet and on talk radio who genuinely seem to think that anyone to left of Mike Huckabee is a dangerous radical moonbat. They would have the GOP chase every administration nominee like a demented family dog running after cyclists. The fact is that Sotomayor, again barring some major revelation, is not going to come across to the average American as a howling moonbat. The GOP needs to pick its fights. If it jumps up and down with hysterical vehemence no matter what Obama does, people will trust it much less when something important and winnable really is at issue. As I said earlier, the GOP needs to avoid letting its wild eyed fringe set the tone.

208 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:24:03pm

re: #197 gtrs

red wings win

Aw, hell. Well, at least the Blackhawks didn't get swept. Maybe next year (says the Cubs fan).

209 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:24:48pm

re: #194 Conservative Moonbat

Most people who were against the invasion of Iraq supported the war for the sake of the troops once we were in there. Hardly anyone wanted the war effort to fail once it started. Being against a single policy is different than wanting Bush to fail as a president.

So, let me get this straight. One radio guy wants the President to fail, but because some of the protesters were for the troops, then they didn't want the President to fail. Back to earlier responses, no, they wanted him impeached and tried as a war criminal. Yes, and also because he LIED!

Is there a ratio of lefties to righties for statement weight? Is it measured in airwave minutes, or inch column length?

They did want the President to fail, even if they didn't want to the troops to fail. How else can you say you're against the war, but for the troops?

210 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:24:57pm

re: #203 Flyers1974

I wonder what would have happened if Obama beat McCain by the same margin as Bush over Gore. In fact, I've seen posters on this website, one today in fact, allege that Obama stole the election because of Acorn.

You think it would have been the same?

I don't.

211 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:25:04pm

re: #198 IslandLibertarian

They were the hard left, code pink types....I can't give you a % but the "Selected not Elected" hate was re-channeled into the anti-war schtick.

No doubt but these Code Pinkers, at that time, had very little to do with your average Democratic voter.

212 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:25:25pm

re: #44 Charles
you got that right.............

213 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:26:45pm

re: #202 Lynn B.

He's the one who said he would be "honored" if they picked out those four little words. He's the one who concentrated on them. He's the one who said he wanted that to be the sound bite that echoed around the world.

Hard to spin it any other way.

Hard to read it in the way you did - he first said that he disagreed with those who said they should give him a chance: "We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000."

Then he said "I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed."

Really, you're looking silly. It's all right there, but if you want to parse it thru some weird decoder you have, go right ahead.

214 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:27:11pm

re: #211 Flyers1974

No doubt but these Code Pinkers, at that time, had very little to do with your average Democratic voter.

But Rush Limbaugh will influence millions of voters, and Obama WILL NOT BE ELEC ... aw, shit!

/

215 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:27:35pm

re: #203 Flyers1974
that poster is delusional and does this site a disservice believing such nonsense

216 hazzyday  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:28:00pm

Lebron needs a Scottie Pippen.

217 Velvet Elvis  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:28:40pm

re: #183 IslandLibertarian

There were anti-war protests BEFORE the U.S. went into Afghanistan.
The hate was there all along.

Only nuts protested Afganistan. I knew a couple of them. Bother were Nader voters. There's a leftist fringe that will protest anything regardless of the party of the president in office. Don't think for a minute that the anti-war movement has gone away just because Obama is in office btw. The same old far left nuts will be out protesting the war in Afganistan before much longer.

218 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:29:20pm

re: #1 Walter L. Newton

"I don't want Sotomayor to fail one bit. I don't want her getting even near the bench."

I am confused by your statements?
Do you want Obama's agenda to be successful and get Sotomayor appointed or do you wish him to FAIL and for Solomayr to not get appointed?

219 Dad O' Blondes  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:29:38pm

A powerful post, and one of the best on this blog -- ever. And I have been here for a few years, and activated during Rathergate.

That the Republican Party has lost its way is obvious to those who care. We are in "the wilderness". It seems lost on so many of the faithful that the last 4 months of Bush II were an unmitigated disaster, and represented a point of demarcation that must be re-crossed. The financial panic of 2008 remains unprecedented, and its effects are continuing to damage the economy, and as a result, the future.

To wish failure on those who have taken the standard is a sign of weakness, and a betrayal of American ideals. Like it or not, it was Bush II that was tagged with the cause of the financial collapse. And that administration's spokespeople, most notably, Henry Paulson (US SECTY Treasury) scared the hell out of the nation with his poor public demeanor and demand for $trillions of our money. And this was read -- right or wrong -- as a cover for his cronies on Wall Street who reaped $millions while the financial system was collapsing. The WOT took a back seat to this calamity, despite the exemplary performance of Bush II on this, the most important issue preceeding the financial collapse. But scared Americans cannot be expected to vote on perseverance, when their credit lines are being slashed.

To policy, if we have better ideas -- then let's hear 'em.

The people, in their wisdom, will decide. And cheering for the winning team to lose is sure path to further destruction.

.

220 Lynn B.  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:32:08pm

re: #179 danrudy

How did he get it right? Rush clearly was talking about policies and has neverf backpedalled?
What he stated 3,5,7 days later is exactly the same thing he stated in at the time of the famous "fail "comment.

You and Tedzilla keep pretending that Charles' whole point revolves around the word "backpedalled," and ignore the rest of what he's saying.

And I'm not going to concede the "backpedal" point either. That transcript speaks for itself.

221 NelsFree  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:32:45pm

From: [Link: 209.157.64.200...]

The Oath taken by Supreme Court Justices:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

From the same article, this followed:
"Upon reading the oath, it looks like the supreme court justices' are NOT to be biased towards anyone. That would include people of their own racial background, sexual gender, or any other factor that would cause a justice to rule on anything other than the letter of the law. I also do not read in the oath that a justice should create laws from the bench. They should rule (pass judgment), based on the facts of the law disregarding everything except the law. While there may be cause for leniency from time to time in the court, it should be based on that individual rather than a special interest group of individuals."

222 Lynn B.  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:33:04pm

re: #213 tedzilla99

Hard to read it in the way you did - he first said that he disagreed with those who said they should give him a chance: "We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000."

Then he said "I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed."

Really, you're looking silly. It's all right there, but if you want to parse it thru some weird decoder you have, go right ahead.

I'm looking silly? Really?

Reading comprehension. It's a useful skill. Try it some time.

223 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:34:10pm

re: #204 FrogMarch

Indeed.
Somehow the democrats think that business sucking leaches labor unions are the answer to our economic woes, so we need more of them. Somehow no matter what the economic reality and data show - the dems live, eat, sleep, breathe and dream of new ways to tax. All while lying and saying "95% of you will get a tax cut & "we are only going to tax the rich" My ass. The "rich" already pay too much and the combination of unions and high taxes are going to kill-off the private sector. ooo government-controlled-everything to the rescue. Amazing how that works.

Did the "rich" pay too much under President Reagan? Because we're not even back to his levels yet, as far as I can tell.

224 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:34:52pm

re: #195 Curt

Carville is a major player. He's been at it for years.

Just because he doesn't get out and get his own talk show, doens't make him less of a player in the arena.

On top of that, isn't it interesting how the "leader" of the conservative movement is a business man.

My question: Just who are the Republican leaders? Sux to have to say it, but they are not trying hard enough to get unfrozen in the media. That's good news for the Dems, and an albatross to wear for the Republican/Conservative side until a real leader comes to the for.

Carville may be a major player for you, but you are politically saavy enough to be posting on a political blog. I don't think your average person would consider him a huge player. They may know the name, but probably not much more. We are discussing why Limbaugh's comment recieved more attention than Carville's. Therefore, Carville's lack of a megaphone explains different treatment. As far as the leader of the GOP being a businessman, well it is easy to play to the base when you do not have to run for re-election. All he must do is figure out what the base wants. No hard decisions to make. Which of course is fine by me. Just sayin.

225 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:36:33pm

re: #222 Lynn B.

I'm looking silly? Really?

Reading comprehension. It's a useful skill. Try it some time.

Whatever - I post the transcript, you make it read what you want, you're delusional. Enjoy!

226 moonstone  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:37:04pm

I've spent the entire evening wondering "what the hell happened to Charles?" and agreeing with those who were explaining what Rush meant, wondering why WE aren't allowed to use the word "fail" when liberals are, etc. (and wondering why someone was downdinged for posting a transcript!)

Full disclosure: I listen to Rush occasionally, think he's a hoot most of the time, and think he makes sense a lot of the time.

But a few minutes ago, I had an epiphany. I think the comparison to James Carville must have done it. All Charles is trying to say is that it sounds bad and we shouldn't say it. Very simple. It doesn't help the conservative cause. Carville is one of the nastiest, most hate-filled little men I have ever seen, and I'm ashamed of us for having to justify Rush by bringing him into the discussion.

Rush knew he was being provocative; he even knew the MSM would crucify him for it. While he had every right to say it, he should have let it drop and not keep repeating it. He knows as well as anyone that the MSM is the enemy as far as conservatives are concerned. They already do a fabulous job of twisting and distorting anything a conservative does; he shouldn't make it so easy for them. It's not fair, but it's the way it is.

227 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:38:16pm

re: #177 Zimriel

I see your ding is as big as mine...

I like LGF because, unlike in the real world, everybody's ding is the same size. :)

228 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:38:54pm

re: #217 Conservative Moonbat i have to agree with the moonbat here; a LOT of those folks are die-hard naderites(as a democrat i DEPSISE nader and his "supporters")

229 Karridine  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:39:14pm

re: #95 JammieWearingFool

Oh, yeah. I see it that way, YOU see it that way, but "a Puerto Rican woman NEEDS to be on the US Supreme Court today" knows all, trumps all

230 EaterOfFood  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:39:33pm

It doesn't matter whether Limbaugh wants his policies to fail. I believe they will, regardless of what anyone (or I) wants.

231 NelsFree  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:39:40pm

re: #218 danrudy

re: #222 Lynn B.

Now now, you two! I think this discussion needs to go out to the porch and sit on the swing awhile. Have some fruit cup.
/channelling nice Aunt

232 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:40:11pm

re: #223 ShanghaiEd
correct ed; we are NOT CLOSE to those levels of the early 80's

233 Promethea  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:41:40pm

re: #65 Iron Fist

But do you really want him to succeed at implementing his agenda? Do you want him to get his socialized medicine through the House and Senate, and be signed into law and then implemented? He has said he won't push gun control, but if you look at this AG (Holder) and now his first (and hopefully only) Supreme Court pick, and you can see it there in the background, waiting for the right time and circumstances to come out. Do you want him to succeed at that?

I don't want the economy to collapse under 1000% inflation just to make Obama look bad. Yeah, that would be cutting off my nose to spite my face, as it were. But I don't want him to be successful in implementing his agenda. Not even a little.

Obama is a menace to our society. I don't want to be worried every minute that some liberal is going misinterpret Rush Limbaugh's words. Liberals already hate Rush Limbaugh, even if they've never heard him speak.

As a former liberal, I know exactly how the liberal mind works. It responds to stimuli the same way cats respond to moving pieces of string. No actual thought is involved.

Obama's economic and social policies will affect me in very horrible ways. I expect to be reduced to penury by out-of- control inflation. I expect to be euthanized when I become elderly, senile, or cancer-ridden. Obama does not offer me any hope whatsoever. He will wreck me personally and our society in general if he persists in the direction he's moving.

I could go on and on, but many people on this thread have already expressed my ideas. Right now, our government is in the hands of crooks who work with crooks in the financial and other industries (GE, the UAW, etc.) to foster their own power at the expense of the American people. I guess the word I'm looking for is "kleptocracy." Obama is the Kleptocrat in chief.

It's also pretty clear that he hates America and wants to see us humbled.

The Republicans are acting like scaredy cats. They need more Dick Cheneys around.

BTW I think someone should point out (maybe me) that the whole "Latina" thing is just a phony construct invented by race-mongers. The Supreme Court appointee is Puerto Rican. She doesn't represent Cubans, Guatemalans, Peruvians, Argentinians, Mexicans. There is no such thing as a "Latina," except in the minds of people who benefit from excessive focus on race.

234 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:41:47pm

re: #220 Lynn B.

You and Tedzilla keep pretending that Charles' whole point revolves around the word "backpedalled," and ignore the rest of what he's saying.

And I'm not going to concede the "backpedal" point either. That transcript speaks for itself.

I'm not pretending anything - Rush is clearly talking about wanting his policies and liberalism in general to fail. He used those words as a preemptive strike against his critics who were going to misquote and mangle his words anyway. It's clear as day. I find that those who concentrate on the word fail are guilty of poor analysis on his meaning, which he is crystal clear about during that entire monologue. And, by saying he backpedaled, that implies that Rush said something that he tried to take back. You can read it clearly - Lynn B. might need help with the big words - that he said what he said, and meant what he said, and fail refers to policy, not the man. There is really absolutely no other way to read it.

235 Velvet Elvis  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:41:50pm

re: #209 Curt

So, let me get this straight. One radio guy wants the President to fail, but because some of the protesters were for the troops, then they didn't want the President to fail. Back to earlier responses, no, they wanted him impeached and tried as a war criminal. Yes, and also because he LIED!

Is there a ratio of lefties to righties for statement weight? Is it measured in airwave minutes, or inch column length?

They did want the President to fail, even if they didn't want to the troops to fail. How else can you say you're against the war, but for the troops?

There's a difference between being against one policy (the war, say) and wanting a president fail at his job as commandeer in chief. I was opposed to the stimulus bill in its final form but that doesn't mean I wanted obama to fail. It means I opposed the bill. It's in our nation's best interest for Obama to be a successful commander in chief, the same as any other president.

236 danrudy  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:42:35pm

re: #220 Lynn B.

You and Tedzilla keep pretending that Charles' whole point revolves around the word "backpedalled," and ignore the rest of what he's saying.

And I'm not going to concede the "backpedal" point either. That transcript speaks for itself.

well...we agree. it speaks for itself

237 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:44:15pm
238 Oldasdirt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:44:41pm

People better realize that we are at war.When times get lean you better
get mean.Every single ounce of our energy needs to be focused on the
direction the enemy is in and keep our aim on the enemy.Why focus any
blogs on Rush or Glen Beck.
These Guys are aiming at the enemy with us.Let them fight the enemy anyway they can.I like these guys,I think they should be cheered and
not jeered.Just seems like your shooting one of our own.
Sorry,(not really)just the way I feel.

239 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:45:03pm

re: #227 ShanghaiEd so "everything" is NOT bigger in texas?................

240 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:45:20pm

re: #224 Flyers1974

Carville may be a major player for you, but you are politically saavy enough to be posting on a political blog. I don't think your average person would consider him a huge player. They may know the name, but probably not much more. We are discussing why Limbaugh's comment recieved more attention than Carville's. Therefore, Carville's lack of a megaphone explains different treatment. As far as the leader of the GOP being a businessman, well it is easy to play to the base when you do not have to run for re-election. All he must do is figure out what the base wants. No hard decisions to make. Which of course is fine by me. Just sayin.

So, on that logic, the rank and file Democrat doesn't listen to Rush, just the CNN/MSNBC/ABC opionists reporters who, as Rush has shown, regularly misquote him, or...pull things out of context, but, they do that with just about anyone Republican/Conservatives, too, not just Rush.

"Play the base?" Like the MSM doesn't "play the base?" I'm sure you haven't been living in a cave for the days of Green Helmet Guy and the AP reports of many topics where they were caught out and out lying about stories?

Rush is an American citizen, just like the other talking heads. He has a right to broadcast within the constraints of the FCC guidelines established, as is everyone else.

241 NelsFree  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:45:41pm

re: #235 Conservative Moonbat

There's a difference between being against one policy (the war, say) and wanting a president fail at his job as commandeer in chief.

commandeer
Verb
1. to seize for military use
2. to take as if by right

How Perfect is That!
/ :)

242 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:45:43pm

by the way the lakers are losing by 7 in the THIRD

243 Promethea  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:45:49pm

re: #77 cybermonk

If he succedes in getting his way, the Country will fail, is that what you want? we are very close to the abyss with this joker. cap and trade, VAT and trillions of debt, can lead to another depression UNLESS he fails.

What you said.

244 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:46:43pm

re: #233 Promethea

Obama is a menace to our society. I don't want to be worried every minute that some liberal is going misinterpret Rush Limbaugh's words. Liberals already hate Rush Limbaugh, even if they've never heard him speak.

As a former liberal, I know exactly how the liberal mind works. It responds to stimuli the same way cats respond to moving pieces of string. No actual thought is involved.

Obama's economic and social policies will affect me in very horrible ways. I expect to be reduced to penury by out-of- control inflation. I expect to be euthanized when I become elderly, senile, or cancer-ridden. Obama does not offer me any hope whatsoever. He will wreck me personally and our society in general if he persists in the direction he's moving.

I could go on and on, but many people on this thread have already expressed my ideas. Right now, our government is in the hands of crooks who work with crooks in the financial and other industries (GE, the UAW, etc.) to foster their own power at the expense of the American people. I guess the word I'm looking for is "kleptocracy." Obama is the Kleptocrat in chief.

It's also pretty clear that he hates America and wants to see us humbled.

The Republicans are acting like scaredy cats. They need more Dick Cheneys around.

BTW I think someone should point out (maybe me) that the whole "Latina" thing is just a phony construct invented by race-mongers. The Supreme Court appointee is Puerto Rican. She doesn't represent Cubans, Guatemalans, Peruvians, Argentinians, Mexicans. There is no such thing as a "Latina," except in the minds of people who benefit from excessive focus on race.

So what's a regular guy like me to do when the President of the United States hates the United States. Any suggestions? This sounds serious.

245 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:48:26pm

re: #244 Flyers1974? IS THIS SNARK?

246 Velvet Elvis  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:49:39pm

re: #241 NelsFree

I must have an ironic spell check

247 P. Aaron  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:50:28pm

So just give up. They got the MSM, and they have all the seats in congress and they don't fight fair.

What's the point in even discussing the pros & cons here?

Obama dislikes the Constitution and has plainly said so. He wants to FUNDAMENTALLY change the country but Republicans should really be concerned about courting people like Colin Powell?

The Dems seemingly have no shame, and will go to any lenghts to foist their leftist agenda upon Americans. Paying no price for Estrada, Steele's credit report, or smearing Clarence Thomas. But Conservatives better not say anything that can get easily misconstrued or they'll be buried.

Just lie down as that brute comes at you with the club knowing that you were at least a 'nice' person who used reason and didn't offend anyone else's sensibilities.

248 Athos  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:51:29pm

re: #234 tedzilla99

I'm not pretending anything - Rush is clearly talking about wanting his policies and liberalism in general to fail. He used those words as a preemptive strike against his critics who were going to misquote and mangle his words anyway. It's clear as day. I find that those who concentrate on the word fail are guilty of poor analysis on his meaning, which he is crystal clear about during that entire monologue. And, by saying he backpedaled, that implies that Rush said something that he tried to take back. You can read it clearly - Lynn B. might need help with the big words - that he said what he said, and meant what he said, and fail refers to policy, not the man. There is really absolutely no other way to read it.

[bold added]

But whether its the person or the policies - there is a far better way to make the argument and get those who oppose the policies and those who might be on the fence to buy into the argument. That is to offer via debate / vision an alternative direction to take and implement that does not use the conotation around 'fail'. Rush does this and does this quite well, but the impact of this is lost to many because they do focus around 'fail' and the negatives associated with that word.

The center in this country is not interested in deciding whom to support based around who is the most negative or the most forceful in their argument. As much as Reagan opposed liberalism and Carter's policies, I don't recall him ever using the term 'fail' around those directions. Instead he focused on the positive aspects of his vision, of his direction, and his interpretation and viewpoint of America and where it needed to be. He contrasted those with the policies and directions of the liberals / Carter and swayed a substantial number of the undecided center.

That is what the GOP / Conservatives have to do today. Not fight the battle on the terms and in the manner of our opponents, but by offering cogent alternatives, highlighting their vision that is anchored in the core values of this country, and distancing themselves from the fringe elements that neither want alternatives or fundamentally believe in the core values of America and its system of government. We don't have to use the word fail....we have to offer an alternative vision, direction, link this to history, and cogently articulate this to the people on a regular basis. The American people are learning very quickly what Hope n'Change is bringing them -and it does not fit our core values or the vision that the majority seek to achieve. Appeal to that and you never have to reference 'fail'.

249 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:51:31pm

re: #244 Flyers1974

So what's a regular guy like me to do when the President of the United States hates the United States. Any suggestions? This sounds serious.

Study the issues. Call your representatives and voice your opinion. Make sure you get to the voting booth. Speak your ideas to your friends and co-workers.

Simple enough, but only about 35% of the voting population do one of those.

Oh, and know enough of a voice can "change" things.

You asked....

250 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:51:55pm

re: #216 hazzyday
go magic!

251 Joel  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:51:59pm

re: #94 loppyd

Democrats sure killed themselves when they wished for Bush to fail.

/

Yeah and they sure put the country's interests first when they wanted Bush to become a successful president. /not

252 NelsFree  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:52:22pm

#222 Lynn B.

re: #236 danrudy

well...we agree. it speaks for itself

re:


The fireflies in the front yard are really pretty right now. Why don't you two just go hold hands and walk around, try to catch one?
/Such a lovely couple

253 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:52:27pm

re: #240 Curt

Rush is an American citizen, just like the other talking heads. He has a right to broadcast within the constraints of the FCC guidelines established, as is everyone else.

I never said he did not have that right, never, ever. I think it is obvious that Limbaugh was and is a far bigger star than Carville. Limbaugh is arguably the most influential Republican since Reagan. Where do you suppose Carville fits with respect to the Democratic Party?

254 NelsFree  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:53:09pm

re: #246 Conservative Moonbat

I must have an ironic spell check

Intuitive spell check.
/

255 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:53:28pm

re: #251 Joel

Yeah and they sure put the country's interests first when they wanted Bush to become a successful president. /not

Dude! You just explained how they "supported the troops, but not the war" thingy....

256 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:55:33pm

re: #253 Flyers1974

Rush is an American citizen, just like the other talking heads. He has a right to broadcast within the constraints of the FCC guidelines established, as is everyone else.

I never said he did not have that right, never, ever. I think it is obvious that Limbaugh was and is a far bigger star than Carville. Limbaugh is arguably the most influential Republican since Reagan. Where do you suppose Carville fits with respect to the Democratic Party?

Yeah, how's that Republican majority working out because he is so influential? Consider the actual outcome. If he's that powerful, why is this thread even happening?

I'd have to counter with maybe Carville (or the Democrats) have been more influential...you know...looking at the facts.

257 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:55:43pm

re: #253 Flyers1974 under the current regime carville is small potatoes....

258 Joel  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:57:10pm

re: #255 Curt

Dude! You just explained how they "supported the troops, but not the war" thingy....

Of course and lets not question their patriotism when John Kerry claimed that American troops terrorized Iraqi civilians at night, when John Murtha falsely claimed that Marines committed murder in Haditha, when Dick Durbin compared our troops to both the Nazis and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, when Ted Kennedy claimed that we were no better then Saddam because of Abu Ghraib, when Harry Reid declared the war to be lost.

259 NelsFree  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:58:00pm

re: #256 Curt

Yeah, how's that Republican majority working out because he is so influential? Consider the actual outcome. If he's that powerful, why is this thread even happening?

1995: Rush made honorary member of House of Reps by Newt for helping get Republicans in control of House.

I'd have to counter with maybe Carville (or the Democrats) have been more influential...you know...looking at the facts.

Rush Limbaugh: "Illustrating absurdity by being absurd."

260 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:58:23pm

re: #258 Joel

Of course and lets not question their patriotism when John Kerry claimed that American troops terrorized Iraqi civilians at night, when John Murtha falsely claimed that Marines committed murder in Haditha, when Dick Durbin compared our troops to both the Nazis and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, when Ted Kennedy claimed that we were no better then Saddam because of Abu Ghraib, when Harry Reid declared the war to be lost.

It brings a whole new meaning to "support," eh?

261 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:58:57pm

re: #245 gtrs

? IS THIS SNARK?

If I am to take those comments as the truth, my response should not be snark. Those are some very serious allegations, not the usual political rhetoric, this guy is dumb, incompetent, wimpy what have you.. The President of the United States hates his own country? Again, if true, aren't we getting into military coup territory?

262 abbyadams  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:59:49pm

re: #191 karmic_inquisitor

"I have followed this man's career for some time," said President George H.W. Bush of Clarence Thomas in July 1991. "He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor."

The GOP push against "empathy" could turn out to be another bit of bad politics. I don't think you want to equate empathy for the human condition with political correctness.

Also, I agree with Charles that this repeated "Fail" coming out of the GOP is not helping the party's condition. It stands to reason that left leaners and right leaners view the world differently, so of course they don't want to see the others' policies be wildly successful; it would mean (in some cases) that their worldview is wrong. When the American public is hurting, though, and they keep hearing Limbaugh saying "Fail" over and over, and there is no clear GOP leader to stand up and present viable alternative policy ideas to the administration's, then it's just perceived as petty and nasty.

263 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 7:59:57pm

re: #237 dcbatlle
do you equate hoping the GOP(a political party) failing with the country failing? be careful here, because if that is the case, in this instance you should be agreeing with charles..................

264 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:00:19pm

re: #261 Flyers1974

If I am to take those comments as the truth, my response should not be snark. Those are some very serious allegations, not the usual political rhetoric, this guy is dumb, incompetent, wimpy what have you.. The President of the United States hates his own country? Again, if true, aren't we getting into military coup territory?

Excuse me? Bush was a "Chimp" and stupid, and couldn't talk. I still don't think anyone suggested a coup...just impeachment, if I recall.

265 jaunte  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:01:27pm
266 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:01:39pm

re: #258 Joel

Of course and lets not question their patriotism when John Kerry claimed that American troops terrorized Iraqi civilians at night, when John Murtha falsely claimed that Marines committed murder in Haditha, when Dick Durbin compared our troops to both the Nazis and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, when Ted Kennedy claimed that we were no better then Saddam because of Abu Ghraib, when Harry Reid declared the war to be lost.

We shouldn't question their patriotism, we should deny it. We should choose a handful of leftists and apply the term anti-patriot to them. We should attack them as hostile to their own nation and show them no respect. Done right, it would be true and it would give the GOP targets to rally against.

267 Gretchen  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:01:55pm

Sotomayor stated "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

A better conclusion, gee that sounds racist and sexist to me. The assumption that your racial group and gender are superior to others...isn't that the definition of sexism and racism? Isn't it racist to believe that whites and Latinos would all come to bad or good conclusions respectively? How about Linda Chavez, who thinks she and Sonia would come to the same conclusions? However, in the world of Sonia Sotomayors' the Linda Chavezs of the world are...inexplicably...white males, they don't fit the racial sterotype they have devised.

Sonia Sotomayor will be a Supreme court judge unless something huge pops up in her background. However, Republicans need to take this opportunity not to use hearing in the disgraceful manner Joe Biden did to Bork and Thomas, but to highlight that the idea that "empathy" is a yardstick for justice is a dangerous road. Who deserves empathy..the burglar who was holding a family at knife point while he stole their life savings or the homeowner who shot him dead to protect his home and loved ones? Surely the burglar grew up under difficult circumstances, but the homeowner was frightened. Shouldn't the law be followed not emotion...should justices only identify with the homeowner if he's Latino like them or the burglar if he's a white Catholic, or shall they follow the law, blind justice?

268 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:02:59pm

re: #208 Dark_Falcon
as a buc fan, i know what you mean...........

269 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:03:57pm

lakers-nuggets tied going into the 4th

270 Athos  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:05:26pm

re: #237 dcbatlle

One, bad behavior justifies additional bad behavior?

Two, since when does a different opinion result in your host banning you? My experience - do so respectfully and remembering you are in his 'house' - will not get you banned. Do so without respect or consideration of the host's 'house' - and you deserve the ban you would get.

271 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:05:48pm

re: #261 Flyers1974
i was agreeing with you; i was asking if the original poster was being snarky; my bad for the mix up

272 westtexasjew  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:06:45pm

When your enemies fail, you win.

Curtis Lemay knew that, and he won, and the world had peace for decades.
Jimmy Carter didn't know that, and now our enemies can destroy us.

273 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:06:57pm

re: #256 Curt

Yeah, how's that Republican majority working out because he is so influential? Consider the actual outcome. If he's that powerful, why is this thread even happening?

I'd have to counter with maybe Carville (or the Democrats) have been more influential...you know...looking at the facts.

I think there is some confusion here. When I say influential, I mean within Limbaugh's influence on the Republican Party, not the US in its entirety. And because a party has a major star, it does not necessarily follow that that party can never lose an election. For example, both parties can have major stars at the same time, someone has to lose. The funny thing is, I'm not offended in the least at Limbaugh's remarks. I just don't think Carville circa 2001 is equal to Limbaugh of 2009.

274 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:09:24pm

re: #261 Flyers1974 sorry; with tensions running so high here perhaps we ALL need a big "LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS"...............

275 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:09:37pm
276 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:10:36pm

Disagreeing with Rush Limbaugh's bombastic stage show does not make me any less a conservative. He's being an ass with the "I hope the ship sinks!" schtick.

He should go out and find her quotes that contrast completely with ones pulled from Obama's beloved speech on race relations from during the campaign. That shouldn't be too hard to do. Or point out some of her soft views on law enforcement in statements pulled from her opinions particularly if there were victims involved that Rush could interview. Or repeat her outright anti-gun ownership quotes and voting record to rattle the redneck democrat base in the Midwest. You have to use her own words against her if you want to get the nomination pulled before there is a vote. Because if it gets to a vote she is in. That's why Rush having a tantrum was counterproductive and classless.

277 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:11:09pm

re: #271 gtrs

i was agreeing with you; i was asking if the original poster was being snarky; my bad for the mix up

I had to do a doubletake - It seems that person has been around a long time. I'm trying not to be biased, and I wasn't looking at blogs in 2000 or 2001, but were there any liberals at that point saying that Bush hated America? And with such conviction, not even the slightest doubt. I'm sure there was somewhere. Anyway, interesting stuff.

278 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:12:00pm

re: #274 gtrs

sorry; with tensions running so high here perhaps we ALL need a big "LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS"...............

I hear you...

279 Velvet Elvis  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:13:07pm

re: #247 P. Aaron


Obama dislikes the Constitution and has plainly said so. He wants to FUNDAMENTALLY change the country but Republicans should really be concerned about courting people like Colin Powell?

There are moderate and conservative democrats who would vote for a republican that is not too far right. I'd have voted for McCain if it hadn't been for Palin. I am people like Colin Powell and right now rather hold my nose and vote for someone like Obama than vote for the negative theocrats the GOP seems to prefer right now.

280 Zimriel  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:14:08pm

re: #275 fighton

As i said, I love this site, I am a proud Lizard, and I wish to continue to be. I just want to be able to be proud of what currently happening, as well as what happened.

Karma: 12
Registered since: Nov 27, 2007 at 6:58 pm
(Logged in)

No. of comments posted: 18
No. of links posted: 2

Proud and gamey concern troll, looks like

281 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:14:40pm

re: #272 westtexasjew

When your enemies fail, you win.

Curtis Lemay knew that, and he won, and the world had peace for decades.
Jimmy Carter didn't know that, and now our enemies can destroy us.

Curtis LeMay had a simple (though difficult in execution) task: Destroy Japan's cities with the new B-29 weapon. Carter's task not so clearly defined.

282 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:14:41pm

re: #21 jcm

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

;-P

Ah, but that's not "hope" ing your enemies "fail" that's actively working for it..

283 Gretchen  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:15:31pm

re: #279 Conservative Moonbat

There are moderate and conservative democrats who would vote for a republican that is not too far right. I'd have voted for McCain if it hadn't been for Palin. I am people like Colin Powell and right now rather hold my nose and vote for someone like Obama than vote for the negative theocrats the GOP seems to prefer right now.

I am always curious...what was your issue with Palin?

284 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:15:49pm

re: #282 pete(detroit)

Holy Cow a blast from the past. Where you been?

285 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:16:59pm

re: #275 fighton PERHAPS winning the fight with that creationist is the first step in winning the larger fight.............

286 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:17:00pm

re: #280 Zimriel

Proud and gamey concern troll, looks like

Good, gamey trolls make for good eating. I'll go fire up the grill.

287 Lynn B.  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:17:59pm

re: #252 NelsFree

I had dropped it (in case you didn't notice).

They're now both on GAZE.

288 jaunte  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:18:14pm

re: #275 fighton

You might post some stories in spinoffs that you think are more important.
Don't wait for someone else to change to suit your preferences.

289 westtexasjew  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:19:55pm

re: #281 Flyers1974

Jimmy Carter did have a game plan: wear a sweater and hug your enemies.
Ronald Reagan did us all a favor by kicking that errant turd into the street.

290 American Sabra  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:20:02pm

re: #273 Flyers1974

I don't get the comparison of Rush to Carville. Maybe because I don't understand the elevating of Rush, a political shock jock who flunked out of college (go check the wiki) to become one of the leaders of the Republican party. I don't get it. Beck, even worse. Carville at least was a lawyer before he worked for Clinton. While Rush sat around pontificating through the mic, Carville was actually connected.

Seems more sense to compare Rush with Randi Rhodes or Al Franken (in his Air America days) but not someone like Carville.

291 Catttt  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:20:45pm

I haven't made up my mind yet about Judge Sotomayor and am looking forward to hearing her speak at her confirmation hearings. I am not willing to scream "oh no!" just because President Obama plans to nominate her. I remember that Justice Souter, who ended up in the liberal wing, was nominated by President G. H. W. Bush.

292 calcajun  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:20:51pm

re: #6 DEZes

I have cats.
So not really.

Well, you won't go hungry./

293 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:21:02pm

re: #279 Conservative Moonbat

There are moderate and conservative democrats who would vote for a republican that is not too far right. I'd have voted for McCain if it hadn't been for Palin. I am people like Colin Powell and right now rather hold my nose and vote for someone like Obama than vote for the negative theocrats the GOP seems to prefer right now.

Hell, I voted for Palin in spite of McCain...
Agreed, on the wakkos the "conservative Right" is attracting - Pat B, Ron P, Chris D, HukkaB, - they're frikkin' NVTZ..
(and let's not even discuss ratings driven asshaps like Chris D)( yeah, that was intentional)

But Jeebus, we need to focus on 1) personal responsibilty 2) national security 3) killing the Mother Killers that believe 'Convert, submit, or die'
What part of 'we want you DEAD' do people frikkin not GET?!?!?

Aw, hell w/ it, I'm cashing in for tonight.
Later all

294 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:21:06pm

re: #264 Curt

Excuse me? Bush was a "Chimp" and stupid, and couldn't talk. I still don't think anyone suggested a coup...just impeachment, if I recall.

Chimp and stupid etc..., are far different than stating with a straight face that Obama hates the United States. And I think you missed my point: Assuming it is correct that Obama hates his own country, isn't this major major news? Would he not be capable of bombing our own cities?Remember, the word was "hates" not that he is stupid, incompetent, greedy, sex maniac, etc... pretty serious stuff if true. Or was that just rhetoric on the poster's part?

295 J.S.  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:21:10pm

re: #277 Flyers1974

I haven't read any of the previous comments, but your writing: "I'm trying not to be biased, and I wasn't looking at blogs in 2000 or 2001, but were there any liberals at that point saying that Bush hated America?" does cause me to wonder...are you asking that as a serious question? (hmmm...maybe you haven't been around the Leftists? or you're not familiar with their "musings" back in 2000 and 2001? -- here in Canada the Left -- that's the Liberals -- were, on a daily basis comparing George W. Bush to *itler, claiming that George W. Bush was a "war criminal", and further stating that 9/11 was an "inside job." Now, I really don't know how much more "anti-American" you could paint GW Bush, than that...

296 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:22:12pm

re: #239 gtrs

so "everything" is NOT bigger in texas?................

Well...present company excepted.

297 averagecdn  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:22:15pm

Enough of these internecine skirmishes. Look how well Bush Derangement Syndrom did for the Dems in 2004, think ODS will do well in 2012?

Time to draft O'Rourke for 2012.

[Link: www.weeklystandard.com...]

298 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:23:20pm

re: #285 gtrs

PERHAPS winning the fight with that creationist is the first step in winning the larger fight.............

Charles just deleted the post.

299 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:23:29pm

re: #277 Flyers1974
full disclosure: i did not like bush and DID NOT vote for him BUT to me politics ends at the shoreline; i ALWAYS want my country to succeed but that does not mean that major political decisions like going to war in iraq in the first place should not be debated fully and openly(i supported the war in aghanistan and still do; i thought shifting into iraq was a mistake from the beginning on MANY levels) AND i think if anyone TRULY believes that the ELECTED president of our country hates our country then they are a little psycho

300 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:24:27pm

re: #284 Mich-again

Holy Cow a blast from the past. Where you been?

Busy workin, lurkin..
yeah, I know, working still here in D... one of the 88% that still HAVE jobs..
Howdy, Mitch...
and TEACAKE! Where YOU been girl?

301 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:24:34pm

re: #296 ShanghaiEd
noted............

302 jordash1212  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:25:38pm

Estoy de acuerdo.

303 irongrampa  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:26:18pm

re: #275 fighton

Let me give you some advice.

I read and post here and at AOSH--there is more than enough variety at both to make for an interesting read.

This is Charle's blog--he sets the agends and rules-as does Ace at HIS blog.

If you don't find a thread to your liking, simply don't read it-you can follow that course at either place.

Failing that, you may simply start your own blog and post on what you wish.

304 BLBfootballs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:27:48pm

In principle I have no problem with X saying they hope Y fails. If Y is actually bad enough, then they should probably fail.

But the Republicans are looking stupid (almost as stupid as....LEFTISTS!) if they oppose and denigrate every moderate, liberal or non-rightist figure without taking the time to look over their record and get an accurate contextual view of the person.

That said, Sotomayor's racialist comments about wise Latino women was supremely inane and frankly insulting to non-Latinos and non-females. If it had been made by a white nominee about his/her own race, that person wouldn't be a nominee for more than 5 minutes.

305 tsionguy  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:28:04pm

Dear Charles: I hope Hamas FAILS. I hope Nasrallah FAILS. I hope Ahmedinejad FAILS. Not everyone deserves "good sportsmanship."

306 westtexasjew  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:28:09pm

Before getting all warm and fuzzy with Sotomayor and the strong reaction of many staunch conservatives, do a thread on La Raza and their racist policies.
They want to kick out Anglos from the southwest, even if they have lived there for generations.
My family has lived in Texas for generations, and I also lost many relatives over in Europe who also were given their final marching orders after living peacefully in their towns and cities for a thousand years.
If Sotomayor wants to shmooze with La Raza, as she has on numerous occasions, then she is unqualified to be on the Supreme Court and should FAIL.

307 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:29:42pm

re: #273 Flyers1974

I think there is some confusion here. When I say influential, I mean within Limbaugh's influence on the Republican Party, not the US in its entirety. And because a party has a major star, it does not necessarily follow that that party can never lose an election. For example, both parties can have major stars at the same time, someone has to lose. The funny thing is, I'm not offended in the least at Limbaugh's remarks. I just don't think Carville circa 2001 is equal to Limbaugh of 2009.

We're never going to unravel your equation on the "Balance of Influence" this evening, are we?

Maybe we need to adjourn and let the UN decide.

For the record, I think the Rush is so influential is a smoke screen. Call me a believer in Rule 13. Saul wrote it himself, and it seems to be taking hold. even some on the conservative side seem to have "absorbed" it.

No matter what Rush says in opposition, it will be "spun up" to high rpms, and then filtered via the MSM system, wouldn't you agree? He is, the leading voice that can be heard in opposition. When the Democrats acted like this, it was called "The Highest Form of Patriotism."

Quite honestly, that makes me realize how terrible I think it was that the Press Secretary of the United States was sent out to specifically return fire on a citizen. That's a lot of my defense of Rush, in that the power of the Office of the President of the United States is used to demean a private citizen. If it can be used on one, it can be used on AIG employees getting bonuses, and later, any of the rest of us who can be deemed "obstructive."

Who's next?

308 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:30:58pm

re: #299 gtrs

"If Obama doesn't like being compared to Hitler and Mussolini, He should keep his damned hands off our guns, the banks, and the transportation industry" (in all fairness, he has publicly stated there is no point in going after legal gun owners at this time, the laws on the books, if enforced, are fufficient to do the job. "if enforced" "at this time" and he REALLY PO'd a LOT of libtards when he said that...)

309 Rexatosis  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:31:32pm

I vehemently oppose Judge Sotomayor's elevation to SCOTUS based on cases. The New Haven Firefighters case is beyond defensable and Kelo just pisses me off. If these decisions/judicial positions are anywhere near moderate the United States as envisioned by out Founding Fathers is dead. These positions taken by Sotomayor are in stark contrast to the concept of meritocracy and property rights. Sotomayor will make Justice Souter look like Justice Scalia before she is done on the bench.

310 Velvet Elvis  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:31:38pm

re: #283 Gretchen

I am always curious...what was your issue with Palin?

Her religious views, her seeming lack of mastery of policy issues, the overall tone of her rallies and speeches, plus she's just too conservative for me, particularly in the socon direction.

Mostly her religious views:
[Link: www.thenation.com...]

there's a lot more out there. google it.

Yeah, I know Obama had a controversial pastor too but at least he got in front of it and talked about it. Palin never addressed the denomonist tendencies of some of her past churches.

311 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:32:19pm

re: #290 American Sabra

I don't get the comparison of Rush to Carville. Maybe because I don't understand the elevating of Rush, a political shock jock who flunked out of college (go check the wiki) to become one of the leaders of the Republican party. I don't get it. Beck, even worse. Carville at least was a lawyer before he worked for Clinton. While Rush sat around pontificating through the mic, Carville was actually connected.

Seems more sense to compare Rush with Randi Rhodes or Al Franken (in his Air America days) but not someone like Carville.

True, true I guess I'm speaking in terms of being known by regular people. Politicallly active people surely know Carville, but I don't think the guy on the street knows much more than what he looks like and maybe that he is a Democrat. On the other hand, no one is ignorant as to who Rush is.

312 Promethea  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:32:35pm

re: #244 Flyers1974

So what's a regular guy like me to do when the President of the United States hates the United States. Any suggestions? This sounds serious.

I wish I knew. I try to talk to people as best I can, knowing that most of the people I know think Obama is a terrific guy.

Right now, my only plan of action is to vote against all incumbents and try to get fresh blood into the local, state, and U.S. legislatures. If you have the energy to get politically involved, then I recommend getting into local politics as a party worker or as a candidate.

313 Gretchen  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:34:01pm

re: #306 westtexasjew
Can anyone imagine a Caucasian themed publication and political movement titled "The Race". I think they are called "The Skin Heads". Case closed.

314 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:35:16pm

re: #279 Conservative Moonbat

There are moderate and conservative democrats who would vote for a republican that is not too far right. I'd have voted for McCain if it hadn't been for Palin. I am people like Colin Powell and right now rather hold my nose and vote for someone like Obama than vote for the negative theocrats the GOP seems to prefer right now.

Was that because Sarah Palin would control national policy, and specifically national defense policy? Did she even say "I'm going to take you're empty hands and fill them with Bibles?"

Much better to let someone trash the economy and take the property of citizens, to put into the control of government bureaucrats, and use his office to get over on his political detractors, than have the VP maybe praying silently at the funeral of a foreign dignitary, I guess.

315 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:35:37pm

re: #307 Curt

We're never going to unravel your equation on the "Balance of Influence" this evening, are we?

Maybe we need to adjourn and let the UN decide.

For the record, I think the Rush is so influential is a smoke screen. Call me a believer in Rule 13. Saul wrote it himself, and it seems to be taking hold. even some on the conservative side seem to have "absorbed" it.

No matter what Rush says in opposition, it will be "spun up" to high rpms, and then filtered via the MSM system, wouldn't you agree? He is, the leading voice that can be heard in opposition. When the Democrats acted like this, it was called "The Highest Form of Patriotism."

Quite honestly, that makes me realize how terrible I think it was that the Press Secretary of the United States was sent out to specifically return fire on a citizen. That's a lot of my defense of Rush, in that the power of the Office of the President of the United States is used to demean a private citizen. If it can be used on one, it can be used on AIG employees getting bonuses, and later, any of the rest of us who can be deemed "obstructive."

Who's next?

Who has influenced the Republican Party more, Rush Limbaugh or George W. Bush?

316 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:36:31pm

Does she support Statehood for Puerto Rico?

317 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:37:12pm

re: #295 J.S.

I haven't read any of the previous comments, but your writing: "I'm trying not to be biased, and I wasn't looking at blogs in 2000 or 2001, but were there any liberals at that point saying that Bush hated America?" does cause me to wonder...are you asking that as a serious question? (hmmm...maybe you haven't been around the Leftists? or you're not familiar with their "musings" back in 2000 and 2001? -- here in Canada the Left -- that's the Liberals -- were, on a daily basis comparing George W. Bush to *itler, claiming that George W. Bush was a "war criminal", and further stating that 9/11 was an "inside job." Now, I really don't know how much more "anti-American" you could paint GW Bush, than that...

I concede that scattered bloggers on both sides have said just about anything under the sun. We're talking about politicians, party representatives, or people who are otherwise visible in the public discourse. Do you know of any visible Democrats who proclaimed, "Bush hates America"?

318 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:37:19pm

re: #305 tsionguydef. not speaking for charles here;ONLY myself, but on THOSE points i agree with you(i actually believe that mr. president holocaust denier in iran will LOSE in the elections this summer)

319 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:38:52pm

re: #305 tsionguy

Dear Charles: I hope Hamas FAILS. I hope Nasrallah FAILS. I hope Ahmedinejad FAILS. Not everyone deserves "good sportsmanship."

Are any of those people the Captain of the Ship you are currently passenger on?

320 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:39:29pm

re: #313 Gretchen
can anyone imagine the way to political EXTINCTION is through insulting the single LARGEST growing voter block in the country?...........

321 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:39:43pm

re: #315 Flyers1974

Who has influenced the Republican Party more, Rush Limbaugh or George W. Bush?

GWB. He was the leader for 8 years and had the hands on the reins. Since Rush signed no one's paychecks in the Republican Party, so to speak, it was the President who had the real influence, not someone the MSM tells us has it.

322 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:39:48pm

re: #317 ShanghaiEd

Do you know of any visible Democrats who proclaimed, "Bush hates America"?

I'll say John Conyers and Cynthia McKinney for starters.

323 fighton  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:40:02pm

re: #288 jaunte

Alright, i will then

324 J.S.  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:41:17pm

re: #311 Flyers1974

Speaking of Carville -- there's a Canadian "liberal" named Warren Kinsella (an immature, obnoxious, petty and juvenile individual, imo) who wrote a book (published on 9/11) entitled: "Kicking ass in Canadian politics" -- much of his "musings" were in servile adoration of his "hero", James Carville. And what Kinsella primarily portrayed were the number of "dirty tricks" that Carville used in "winning elections." Much of the "politics" was based on the notion that the electorate is comprised of sub-functional, semi-illiterates and that they'll all be "grabbed" by gimmicks and theatrics.

325 cardiacmont  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:41:35pm

re: #107 Charles
You came to a very quick judgment about how I live my life.

Doesn't sound like you gave me the benefit of the doubt, just as I don't give Obama the benefit. I don't care how you treat me, for it makes no difference as I have less than a teaspoon of power. Obama has real power. Treating him like he might have changed in the last couple of hours is dangerous yet you're not just giving him the benefit of the doubt, you're encouraging others.

326 katemaclaren  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:42:28pm

re: #1 Walter L. Newton

I don't want Sotomayor to fail one bit. I don't want her getting even near the bench.

Someone said, it is not enough to win, our enemies must also fail. Or something like that.

327 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:43:01pm

re: #295 J.S.

I haven't read any of the previous comments, but your writing: "I'm trying not to be biased, and I wasn't looking at blogs in 2000 or 2001, but were there any liberals at that point saying that Bush hated America?" does cause me to wonder...are you asking that as a serious question? (hmmm...maybe you haven't been around the Leftists? or you're not familiar with their "musings" back in 2000 and 2001? -- here in Canada the Left -- that's the Liberals -- were, on a daily basis comparing George W. Bush to *itler, claiming that George W. Bush was a "war criminal", and further stating that 9/11 was an "inside job." Now, I really don't know how much more "anti-American" you could paint GW Bush, than that...

The difference is that this rhetoric is occurring not even five months into Obama's presidency. In addition, the Conservatives have been complaining for how long about W's treatment? And yet they are doing the same thing without any hint of irony? No shyness at all, i.e., gee, we've been complaining about the liberals, kind of embarrassing to do the same exact thing. Ah, forget it I'm just cranky tonight.

328 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:43:05pm

re: #304 BLBfootballs


That said, Sotomayor's racialist comments about wise Latino women was supremely inane and frankly insulting to non-Latinos and non-females. If it had been made by a white nominee about his/her own race, that person wouldn't be a nominee for more than 5 minutes.

Exactly. Think David Duke - "I think that a White Male's experience is more valid than anyone else's... I mean, if you haven't actually participated in a lynching, are you qualified to JUDGE such a person?"

Ok, NOT that he (DDuke) ever said that, or anything remotely LIKE that. BUT.. Please, explain to me how that's different than HER officially registered opinions?
As stated previously, my brother took fire safety classes (got a degree) worked hard (training w/ a 50 lb pack) to get "qualified"
Hauled hoses in, and dummies out of a building faster (on test day) than 90% of his fellow applicants, but did not get a job because he was white, and male. Now, if/when MY house is in fire (God forbid) *I* want the 6'3" guy who can CARRY a 200# schleb out the window and down the ladder coming in, NOT the 5'2" 98lb "Quota Queen" who couldn't lift one leg..
I mean really...
(and no offense intended to any female firefighters / first responders / cops / soldiers, etc... but if I need my ass hauled OUT of a place, I need someone who *can* **haul** it)

329 ladycatnip  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:44:25pm

#314 Curt

Was that because Sarah Palin would control national policy, and specifically national defense policy? Did she even say "I'm going to take you're empty hands and fill them with Bibles?"

Much better to let someone trash the economy and take the property of citizens, to put into the control of government bureaucrats, and use his office to get over on his political detractors, than have the VP maybe praying silently at the funeral of a foreign dignitary, I guess.

Love it. Well said.

330 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:44:33pm

re: #316 Mich-again

re: #308 pete(detroit)
yea; after he won by 10 MILLION votes he really cares about those folks who call him names?.................sticks and stones...............

331 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:45:23pm

re: #307 Curt


Who's next?

Exactly

332 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:45:31pm

re: #322 Mich-again
mckinney is a democrat IF david duke is a republican................

333 Velvet Elvis  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:45:39pm

re: #314 Curt

If McCain had been younger I have risked it. I'll know in 2012 if the gamble paid off or not.

334 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:45:45pm

re: #310 Conservative Moonbat

Her religious views, her seeming lack of mastery of policy issues, the overall tone of her rallies and speeches, plus she's just too conservative for me, particularly in the socon direction.

I knew she was toast when she couldn't name a single newspaper she actually read in the first Katie Couric interview. And Couric gave her plenty of time to collect her thoughts and if nothing else just rattle off a few famous newspapers or just say you go online to get the news at the Google news homepage. But the 20 seconds of bumbling silence was so awkward. Geesh. My take on that segment was that not only does she not read any newspapers, she never has. She fell a long way there.

335 Zimriel  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:46:10pm

Anyway, looks like fighton is just dandy with re: #306 westtexasjew

Before getting all warm and fuzzy with Sotomayor and the strong reaction of many staunch conservatives, do a thread on La Raza and their racist policies.

Be careful what you wish for.

Sotomayor delivered a speech in Berkeley which was then, a year later, picked up by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. She is not a member of La Raza.

As for La Raza: According to the "Ask a Mexican" column, it refers to "La Raza Cósmica", a theme from Jose Vasconcelos. It is not a racial purity movement; or we'd be seeing it eject Maya, Nicaraguans, and other non-Uto-Aztecan peoples from its ranks. Vasconcelos was a believer in cultural unity, not in race.

Which is creepy enough.

Vasconcelos and, by extension, La Raza are arguably fascist, in the way Jonah Goldberg defines "fascism". This "Cósmica" stuff, particularly, gives me the willies. They're not overtly Vlaams Belang bad. But they're in that neighbourhood.

336 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:47:12pm

re: #309 Rexatosis

Holey Crap, she was in on Kelo too?
I'm done...

337 Zimriel  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:47:30pm

gahh, pimf. nevermind whatever "fighton" thinks.

338 mrclark  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:47:48pm

Gretchen...

Though rational minds would follow your rationale, today's metrosexual, media following, 'urban American' would have the knee jerk reaction of being fearful to express such an incredibly innocuous bit of common sense without first Google-ing the heart felt sentiments of Gawker mag or Access Hollywood.

Kudos to you.

339 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:48:20pm

re: #332 gtrs

mckinney is a democrat IF david duke is a republican................

Yah. If you want to pull out the ancient history, David Duke first ran as a Democrat.

340 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:48:36pm

re: #333 Conservative Moonbat

If McCain had been younger I have risked it. I'll know in 2012 if the gamble paid off or not.

MCCain was in very good health, and I know the POWs were extensively studied for a long time after the war to find out the long term effects of the captivity. He was in better shape than his contemporaries by quite a lot, so he was a good bet.

Too late now.

341 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:50:13pm

re: #324 J.S.

Speaking of Carville -- there's a Canadian "liberal" named Warren Kinsella (an immature, obnoxious, petty and juvenile individual, imo) who wrote a book (published on 9/11) entitled: "Kicking ass in Canadian politics" -- much of his "musings" were in servile adoration of his "hero", James Carville. And what Kinsella primarily portrayed were the number of "dirty tricks" that Carville used in "winning elections." Much of the "politics" was based on the notion that the electorate is comprised of sub-functional, semi-illiterates and that they'll all be "grabbed" by gimmicks and theatrics.

This I believe. And it is not unique to either side.

342 Curt  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:51:15pm

CM, Flyers1974, and the rest...end of the evening here in Lizard Land.

I'm sure there will be more threads to text spar on another day.

343 mrclark  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:51:56pm

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I also think making a racial issue out of this is distasteful.

I agree...Sotomayor and Obama should stop trying to use her race as some kind of qualification for the Supreme Court.

344 J.S.  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:52:51pm

re: #327 Flyers1974

Within days of 9/11 the CBC produced a "program" -- it was a citizens' roundtable (? I've forgotten what they called it now -- but it was to garner "public opinion" about the attacks, it was open to the public, a public forum) -- and who, pray tell, did the audience blame for 9/11? Well, of course, it was all Amerikkka's fault...In fact, the CIA created Osama bin Laden, etc., etc. These "talking points", dutifully repeated by audience members, were nothing new...It was the Leftist "boilerplate" repeated by the CBC "reporters" ad nauseum -- to the effect that "Americans get what they deserve"...(this same line was later repeated by Canada's Prime Minister, Chretien, during a "Christmas" message, iirc...) Then, for the next eight years we got to hear ever increasingly absurdist claims...(even today, btw, you can go to a Mainstream Political Party here in Canada which is demanding that the Harper government immediately indict George Bush as a "war criminal", etc., oh, and they do, indeed, have elected members in parliament...hence, they're not "fringe.")

345 Gretchen  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:52:57pm

re: #310 Conservative Moonbat

Her religious views, her seeming lack of mastery of policy issues, the overall tone of her rallies and speeches, plus she's just too conservative for me, particularly in the socon direction.

Mostly her religious views:
[Link: www.thenation.com...]

there's a lot more out there. google it.

Yeah, I know Obama had a controversial pastor too but at least he got in front of it and talked about it. Palin never addressed the denomonist tendencies of some of her past churches.

Wow, her private religious life was a dealbreaker. I am amazed you consider yourself conservative, and I mean that respectfully. Obama had a pastor who spoke on political issues, public policy, and preached racism from the pulpit. Palin's church had some views I don't agree with but how those views influenced her public policy isn't clear to me. Of course she is anti-abortion (as any Republican candidate would have been), but the VP really has no sway over that issue. As far has her lack of mastery of policy issues once you researched the issues Joe Biden, for all his years in the Senate had shockingly erroneous views on many international issues. Sarah had better grasp of policy issues off prompter than Obama had off prompter.


Meanwhile, Obama is busy trashing private property rights, contracts and increasing the scope of government as well as spending enormously all while shoveling our tax dollars and future tax dollars into the pockets of his backers. He's cutting missile defense just as the NK's are sending up nukes like it's 4th of July. The VP has very little policy making power, thank God, as I wouldn't trust Joe Biden to change the kitty litter. You were willing to trade all this because you were uncomfortable with Palin's church. That's fascinating to me. I guess Mitt Romney was out too for you. Ironically, Mitt was probably the only candidate who had any idea how the economy actually works.

346 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:53:16pm

re: #339 Mich-again again you miss the point; mckinney is NOT a democrat when she runs for president with a different party(which she did) AND david duke was ELECTED as a republican and IN FACT was the republican NOMINEE for governor of louisiana in 1991; so, i repeat; mckinney is a democrat IF david duke is a republican..............

347 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:53:18pm

re: #322 Mich-again

I'll say John Conyers and Cynthia McKinney for starters.

I have no doubt that McKinney said this - but I think the dems who knew who she was considered her a freak, which indeed she was. She also lost her primary because of her freakiness. Conyers, I wasn't aware of any such remarks.

348 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:53:19pm

re: #324 J.S.

Much of the "politics" was based on the notion that the electorate is comprised of sub-functional, semi-illiterates and that they'll all be "grabbed" by gimmicks and theatrics.

And you have a counter argument? Face it more people voted in last week's "American Idol" run off than voted in the previous presidential election. If THAT doesn't make you want to puke, well there's little hope for you..

349 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:54:20pm

re: #341 Flyers1974
sounds like a liberal lee atwater...........

350 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:57:16pm

re: #342 Curt

CM, Flyers1974, and the rest...end of the evening here in Lizard Land.

I'm sure there will be more threads to text spar on another day.

This political talk gets me too amped up. I may have to start a nice tame blog. I don't know, maybe about bird watching. Anyone here like birds? But then again I'm sure the birdwatchers will have there own little camps as well, old ladies firing off nasty e-mails who saw what bird, etc...

351 Gretchen  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:57:20pm

re: #320 gtrs

can anyone imagine the way to political EXTINCTION is through insulting the single LARGEST growing voter block in the country?...........

So any Latino must be treated differently than non-Latinos? Wait, only if they are democrats -- Miguel Estrada. Most Latinos are at odds with the Democrats over abortion. I think white males are a HUGE voting block yet democrats go out of their way to insult them when ever possible.

352 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:59:10pm

re: #350 Flyers1974 since you are a sports fan, why not a sports blog?

353 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 8:59:54pm

re: #330 gtrs

re: #308 pete(detroit)
yea; after he won by 10 MILLION votes he really cares about those folks who call him names?.................sticks and stones...............

Ok, not sure why you're linking those two comments.. but yes, about a month or two ago (as he was eating 2 of the 3 major autos in this country) he (or others speaking on his behalf) were really honked off at the word "Fascist" being applied to the "O-ministration"
Apparently, he (or others speaking on his behalf) DO care...
"If the Foo Shits, Wear It..."

354 J.S.  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:01:26pm

re: #348 pete(detroit)

that political parties can appeal to the lowest common denominator is not "news" -- it's been around for years (perhaps for perpetuity) -- however, that's not the same as maintaining that this is "how things should be." If you read Lincoln's speeches, what's most striking is the level of intelligence (you know that Lincoln was not assuming that his audience was comprised of idiots.) imo that's what politics should aspire to -- the best (not the worst) in human beings...

355 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:01:37pm

re: #351 Gretchen
since i am a white male AND a democrat(a conservative one but still a democrat)imagine my surprise that i disagree with you............

356 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:03:28pm

re: #350 Flyers1974

This political talk gets me too amped up. I may have to start a nice tame blog. I don't know, maybe about bird watching. Anyone here like birds? But then again I'm sure the birdwatchers will have there own little camps as well, old ladies firing off nasty e-mails who saw what bird, etc...

And occasionally, even shoot birds.

357 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:04:23pm

re: #353 pete(detroit)
way to swing and miss.............now, about those 10 MILLION VOTES...................

358 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:04:34pm

re: #346 gtrs

again you miss the point; mckinney is NOT a democrat when she runs for president with a different party(which she did) AND david duke was ELECTED as a republican and IN FACT was the republican NOMINEE for governor of louisiana in 1991; so, i repeat; mckinney is a democrat IF david duke is a republican..............

Duke won in LA even though Bush I, Reagan and other Republicans campaigned against him. I think that says more about LA than it does about the GOP.

As for McKinney, she was a Democrat serving in Congress until just a couple years ago.

359 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:05:42pm

re: #332 gtrs

mckinney is a democrat IF david duke is a republican................

McKinney WAS a Dem, Duke WAS a Rep - Next?
Oh, and Conyors has been in office My Whole Life (I'm well over 40) and an a$$haole the whole time.
And (just to be totally snide) his wife is an even bigger idiot than HE is.. (Onward Christian Soldiers... Council woman of Detroit, and single handedly got most recent mayor kicked out office, as HE would replace HER as pres of city council...)
Aww, Geeze I *do* need to go to bed..

360 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:07:22pm

re: #352 gtrs

since you are a sports fan, why not a sports blog?

I used to be a huge Philly sports fan. At one point I probably saw or heard on the radio 70 Flyers games a year. Yeah, I wasn't the coolest kid in highschool. But I was hard-core Flyers. The game and sports have changed so much, to commercial. Like where every team now has black in there uniform because it supposedly sells more jerseys. Speaking of fascist, I was a fascist hockey fan - I liked the game best when it was only Canadiens and Americans. Nothing against the Europeans personally, but I liked the rougher game with fighting, etc... But I digress. Was kidding about my own blog. I have literally zero computer skills. Still trying to figure out how to use the word cross out function on this blog...

361 mrclark  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:07:37pm

re: #68 Typicalwhitey

Lots of Dems wanted Bush to fail.
Didn't seem to hurt them in the election.

yes, yes...but that was when it was 'fashionable' to want a President to fail. Now you see, it's no longer in fashion. In fact, it's almost downright racist to say so. (Actually I'm enormously surprised the race card hasn't been played more by worshipers of the great and mighty 'O')

362 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:11:28pm

re: #345 Gretchen

I wouldn't trust Joe Biden to change the kitty litter

Rotating title Nomination...

363 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:11:42pm

re: #361 mrclark

yes, yes...but that was when it was 'fashionable' to want a President to fail. Now you see, it's no longer in fashion. In fact, it's almost downright racist to say so. (Actually I'm enormously surprised the race card hasn't been played more by worshipers of the great and mighty 'O')


You miss the point on purpose.

364 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:13:21pm

re: #360 Flyers1974

Are you Mike Stone?
/

365 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:15:09pm

re: #364 Mich-again

Are you Mike Stone?
/

Who's he?

366 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:16:41pm

re: #345 Gretchen

Wow, her private religious life was a dealbreaker. I am amazed you consider yourself conservative, and I mean that respectfully. Obama had a pastor who spoke on political issues, public policy, and preached racism from the pulpit. Palin's church had some views I don't agree with but how those views influenced her public policy isn't clear to me. Of course she is anti-abortion (as any Republican candidate would have been), but the VP really has no sway over that issue. As far has her lack of mastery of policy issues once you researched the issues Joe Biden, for all his years in the Senate had shockingly erroneous views on many international issues. Sarah had better grasp of policy issues off prompter than Obama had off prompter.

Meanwhile, Obama is busy trashing private property rights, contracts and increasing the scope of government as well as spending enormously all while shoveling our tax dollars and future tax dollars into the pockets of his backers. He's cutting missile defense just as the NK's are sending up nukes like it's 4th of July. The VP has very little policy making power, thank God, as I wouldn't trust Joe Biden to change the kitty litter. You were willing to trade all this because you were uncomfortable with Palin's church. That's fascinating to me. I guess Mitt Romney was out too for you. Ironically, Mitt was probably the only candidate who had any idea how the economy actually works.

Gretchen: Since the Religious Right came along, "private religious life" is an oxymoron, especially where a politician is concerned. Are you familiar with the Dominionist and Christian Reconstructionist movements that are very active within Palin's denomination?

Ask those activists if they expected Palin's religious influence to consist of merely leading private prayer meetings in the Oval Office, and you would have gotten an earful.

You say that how her religion would have affected her public policy "isn't clear" to you. It's much clearer to me after I did some research; Dominionism and Reconstructionism are very scary. Please look into those movements and calm me down if I'm off base.

367 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:17:03pm

re: #365 Flyers1974

He is/was a Detroit Sports radio personality who was/is a huge Flyer's fan from his yout in Filly.

368 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:17:45pm

re: #354 J.S.

that political parties can appeal to the lowest common denominator is not "news" -- it's been around for years (perhaps for perpetuity) -- however, that's not the same as maintaining that this is "how things should be." If you read Lincoln's speeches, what's most striking is the level of intelligence (you know that Lincoln was not assuming that his audience was comprised of idiots.) imo that's what politics should aspire to -- the best (not the worst) in human beings...

People in Lincoln's day were FAR more literate than today
Sorry, too schleepy to post a link
People today, are, by and large idiots, politically speaking.
"Who want's ice cream? "
Please...
I am willing to concede "Free" (we ALL are, yes?) "White" (14th? amendment?) "Male" (17th?) and 21 (39th?) but if not landowners, can we PLEASE restrice voting rights to TAXPAYERS? (And living ones?)

369 freedomplow  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:17:55pm

A lot of people like Obama and his policies and shouldn't hold back admitting it.

I like him as a person but not as a President.

Somewhere along the way Obama was told spending more money than anyone in our world could possibly imagine was a good idea. Obama and a lot of people bought into that. Maybe you reading this.

Did you also buy into... The world likes us now because of Obama or his wish to close Gitmo?

After all, who were the people screaming to the world at the top of their lungs that Gitmo and Bush are bad? Democrats.
It was political, not serious thought.

If you like Obama go ahead and admit it.

I would like to point out the fact that Obama has a good chance on being a horrible President... way worse than Jimmy Carter.

Being Coy about if you like Obama does not help further this discussion, only his policies.

370 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:17:56pm

re: #359 pete(detroit)the point is conyers IS elected(along with his batshit crazy DAUGHTER, not wife); duke was ELECTED and mckinney was ELECTED;thankfully, the democrats in atlanta got smart and booted her idiot ass just like the republicans in lousiana eventually saw the ERROR that was duke; the moral of the story? there are enough crazies to go around that BOTH party's should remain vigilant; for instance, explain tom tancredo please..........................

371 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:19:30pm

re: #367 Mich-again

He is/was a Detroit Sports radio personality who was/is a huge Flyer's fan from his yout in Filly.

Ah, nah never heard of him. You're redwings made it though, congratulations - you are Redwings I assume?

372 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:22:20pm

re: #371

Flyers1974

you are Redwings I assume?

Uh that would be correct. Since my first game at the Olympia before there was a Joe.

Out.

373 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:23:26pm

re: #357 gtrs

Ask Acorn (and the oh-so-gullible who a}didn't realize he was a commie scumbag b} didn't care c} think communism is a GOOD idea - which group do you fall into? the dead? the dense? the blind? or the idiots?)
(not like I care)
:yawn:

374 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:25:43pm

re: #370 gtrs

the point is conyers IS elected(along with his batshit crazy DAUGHTER, not wife);

Uh, dude? I frikkin' LIVE here. Monica Conyors, while YOUNG enough to be his daughter, is his WIFE.
His kids are still in school
Big scandal (almost) about Fed Funds being used to chauffeur them.

Don't try to teach your gramma to suck eggs, until you gots not teef..

375 Deseeded  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:25:53pm

I totally agree that hoping for your own country to fail is like hoping to get diarrhea to prove that some food was spoiled. It was spoiled without having to eat it.

Better to just readjust when the opportunity arises. I would never wish for one of my stocks to fail just to prove some guy wrong who may have invested in it and thought it was going to go higher than I thought. Hope I'm not being vague. :D

376 pete(detroit)  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:26:43pm

re: #370 gtrs

the moral of the story? there are enough crazies to go around that BOTH party's should remain vigilant; for instance, explain tom tancredo please..........................

Excellent point - two in fact...

377 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:27:15pm

re: #372 Mich-again

Flyers1974


Uh that would be correct. Since my first game at the Olympia before there was a Joe.

Out.

I remember when the Redwings were really bad, the entire 70's and 80's and then bam, they turned into one of the most successful teams. Philly hasn't beaten you guys in Detroit since I was highschool, like 1988 or thereabouts.

378 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:27:36pm

re: #322 Mich-again

I'll say John Conyers and Cynthia McKinney for starters.

Not that I can find. McKinney wanted to impeach Bush, but we all know impeachment is patriotic.

Google comes up without any claims by Conyers or McKinney that Bush hates America. Lots of headlines from right-wing blogs saying "McKinney hates America." But that's not what we're looking for, right?

379 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:28:39pm

so you admit to a being complete idiot? that is; do you think obama did not win in november? if your answer is yes to that simple question; then you are clearly a moron; good day.....................

380 Varilux  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:30:43pm

For better or for worse, something has happened to you Charles, and you're being intellectually dishonest if you maintain that it hasn't.

It certainly isn't that I disagree with you, in fact the GOP (since it/they seem to be the focus of your very valid criticisms) would do well to pay attention. You cannot however say that your tone and purpose hasn't shifted. A quick glance at your site tells a person that much.

I always have and will continue to appreciate your analysis, and will never, ever visit because I am drawn by any "train wreck factor" but please do not lower my opinion of your objective integrity by insisting that there's no difference at all.

381 ArrowSmith  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:32:47pm

I agree that it's not good politics - but the left was openly wanting Bush to fail for 8 years. It's human nature to want revenge for that.

382 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:32:47pm

re: #373 pete(detroit)

Ask Acorn (and the oh-so-gullible who a}didn't realize he was a commie scumbag b} didn't care c} think communism is a GOOD idea - which group do you fall into? the dead? the dense? the blind? or the idiots?)
(not like I care)
:yawn:

Pete: If you had facts, evidence, and persuasiveness to match your anger, your argument would be a lot more powerful. I'm just sayin'.

383 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:33:14pm
384 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:34:54pm

re: #374 pete(detroit)
you are ONLY correct about his wife; the other stuff here and in your other posts are total drivel; for instance; a simple question; do you or do you not think obama won in november? i look forward to a repsonse from someone who thinks "libtard" has any meaning at all other than to show the users complete ignorance..............

385 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:35:28pm

re: #383 rbuchberger

Bye now! Sorry, you don't get to post your dramatic flounce-off.

386 pbird  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:35:45pm

re: #197 gtrs

red wings win

OH no!

387 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:35:55pm

re: #382 ShanghaiEd
he has no argument; just anger(his racism gets him every time..........)

388 jaunte  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:36:42pm

Tommy Emmanuel hates complainers.

389 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:37:11pm

re: #386 pbird
they won in OT(i was watching but i am actually a lightning fan);also, GO MAGIC!

390 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:38:32pm

re: #380 Varilux

OK, it's true. I've been taken over by parasitical aliens from the RINO universe. I admit it. I tried to resist, but they threatened to remove my pituitary gland and waterboard my kitteh.

Good grief.

391 pbird  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:38:56pm

re: #206 hazzyday

The local news here last night had interviews of proud Hispanics and why this choice was such a great thing for Hispanics. Inspiring to them. I always think this is a weakness in a person. Something you can pander to them forever on and they will never get over it til they get religious.

I met the young troubled black man who acquired hope in the country when Pres Obama was elected. Though it's running counter to my thought process, some people are getting value out of these things. I don't see though how that type of trend can continue in politics without breaking down along the lines that have been etched.

I would now, never vote on race. I've met many people though who handicap themselves as victims based on their minority status. I don't think those types of people are ever good leaders.

Once on the national stage one has to serve the nation.

I would point out Ron Sims the new HuD undersecretary? from Seattle is a good afro american leader in this manner. Though I disagree with his positions.

Actually Sims is a dope.

392 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:40:47pm

re: #390 Charles I APOLOGIZE TO YOU CHARLES if i cause this site any grief

393 Deseeded  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:41:17pm

Here's a question: With Sotomayor getting the nod, what should we expect the Supreme Court to do different? When Roberts was tapped, the left was expecting the entire country to go Inquisitionesque judgment...but it never happened. Could this be more of the same? Just freaking out over something that will in all likelihood not change anything?

394 jaunte  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:42:23pm

re: #393 Deseeded

But freaking out makes us feel like we're doing something important!

395 Deseeded  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:45:49pm

re: #394 jaunte

But freaking out makes us feel like we're doing something important!

Hahaha. Well then....

The roof! The roof! The roof is on fire!

396 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:45:52pm

re: #382 ShanghaiEd also ed; notice how he didn't have a response about tom tancredo, the biggest science denier in his party(i saw tancredo just last week basically say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old; it was at the time that new fossil was being discussed by the major MSM)

397 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:46:48pm

re: #395 Deseeded
WE DON'T NEED NO WATER LET THE MOTHER FUCKER BURN.........

398 Varilux  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:46:52pm

Golly, those things about not being a jerk and playing nice in the hatchling code--I guess they're more you'd call guidelines than actual rules. :)

399 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:48:40pm

THE SAME GUY THAT DOWN DINGED ME, DOWN DINGED CHARLES; I WEAR THAT ONE AS A BADGE OF HONOR..............

400 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:51:35pm

re: #378 ShanghaiEd
I REPEAT; mckinney is a democrat IF david duke is a republican

401 bungie  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:51:40pm

I'm wondering why no one remembers what the liberals did to Bork, Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada? They were vicious and it turned people off, but it was effective. I heard a few liberals say today without irony,"I'm so tired of this strife from both sides" with amusement. Funny how they want everything to be all congenial when they are in danger of being on the receiving end of a blow.

It reminds me of how people criticize aggressive lawyers until they need one.

402 ArrowSmith  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:52:38pm

re: #401 bungie

Apparently the public doesn't mind vicious politics from Democrats, but does mind it from Republicans. There is a double standard for whatever reason.

403 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 9:58:23pm

re: #327 Flyers1974
boy that cardiacmont is on a downding ROLL.....................

404 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 10:01:25pm

re: #403 gtrs

boy that cardiacmont is on a downding ROLL.....................

You know, I haven't downdinged anyone yet...

405 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 10:03:49pm

Good night, its way too late.

406 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 10:07:26pm

re: #405 Flyers1974 good night; about that sports blog?>

407 gtrs  Wed, May 27, 2009 10:08:51pm

re: #404 Flyers1974
i don't even know how BUT he down dinged you, me, AND CHARLES; we are in great company................

408 pbird  Wed, May 27, 2009 10:12:28pm

re: #389 gtrs

they won in OT(i was watching but i am actually a lightning fan);also, GO MAGIC!

Shoot. I missed it.

409 Twenglish  Wed, May 27, 2009 10:18:30pm

Thanks Charles ,

I always knew that about half the Democrats beginning with Harry Reid were petty, weak, and vindictive.

But I just can't understand why people everywhere now hold the negative opinion of a single private citizen over and above those similar opinions coming from scores of our elected officials .

When Harry Reid Called Bush a failure and half the democrat party set out to trip him up under the auspice of the many party officials who also said that his policy were failed where were you ?

I don't understand how Rush Limbaugh figures into this , he's an entertainer and makes no policy .

Care to elaborate ?

410 Former Belgian  Wed, May 27, 2009 10:23:24pm

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I also think making a racial issue out of this is distasteful.

Just got back online.

It's not a racial issue --- every time I had to fill in my "racial classification for EO/AA purposes" on US forms, I was reminded that the definition of "Hispanic" ends with "...regardless of race". Actually, Sotomayor looks quite white to me (as much of the Latin-American upper class does, having mostly Spanish ancestry). My wife (who partly grew up in Latin America) could pass for an upper-class Hispanic with some effort (she's actually 100% Russian and Lithuanian Jewish).

In fact, both D and R have been engaged in what Mickey Kaus has termed "Operation Hispander" for quite a while (because they're a large voter block not automatically in the D camp: the D try "victimocracy", the R try playing to the conservative Catholic instincts of many Hispanics). I am sure that if McCain had been elected and he would have nominated a Hispanic woman conservative, the R machine would have been drooling all over her. (Where was everybody when Alberto Gonzales was appointed AG by Bush?)

411 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 10:45:12pm

re: #409 Twenglish

When Harry Reid Called Bush a failure and half the democrat party set out to trip him up under the auspice of the many party officials who also said that his policy were failed where were you ?

I was blogging about it, and very critical of Harry Reid. Where the hell were you?

Care to elaborate ?

No.

412 Banner  Wed, May 27, 2009 10:53:34pm

I was listening to him when he said it, he said he hoped Obama failed in implementing his policies. He also said he was sure he would be misquoted and didn't care.

To be honest, I hoped Obama had failed in implementing his policies too, but now that we've got the biggest spending bill in history by a huge margin, it's obvious he didn't. And considering how many people said they hoped Bush would fail I don't see what the issue is.

413 Danny  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:24:42am

re: #380 Varilux

For better or for worse, something has happened to you Charles, and you're being intellectually dishonest if you maintain that it hasn't.

It certainly isn't that I disagree with you, in fact the GOP (since it/they seem to be the focus of your very valid criticisms) would do well to pay attention. You cannot however say that your tone and purpose hasn't shifted. A quick glance at your site tells a person that much.

No doubt the "tone and purpose" of LGF has frequently changed since it was born. I don't know if they are still accessible, but if you read pre-911 LGF postings, then compare them to post-911 postings by which most of us became familiar with Charles, you will probably notice a distinct change in the "tone and focus" of the blog. Something definitely changed, but it wasn't the blogger. Since 911, and especially recently, the American political landscape has slowly but very dramatically changed. Charles's chronicling and critiquing of the changes, particularly those occurring on the political right, apparently creates the perception that he has changed. Change happens where it happens, though. Shifting a blog's focus to put a spotlight on them doesn't necessarily mean the blogger's core beliefs and tenets have changed.

On the other hand, I'm guessing that some of the changes, along with the death threats and whatnot, have induced Charles to change his mind about certain things and people. But if so, that would seem to be a feature, not a bug.

414 Fearless Fred  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:26:49am
When Rush Limbaugh says he wants Obama to fail, even if he backpedals and says he wants “policies” to fail, a whole lot of people in this country hear him saying he wants America to fail — because, like it or not, Barack Obama was elected President by a majority of the voters in this country.

But hardly any of those voters were voting for the socialist statist policies Obama will continue to aggressively push. Anyone who really believes Limbaugh wants America to fail doesn't really want to hear what Limbaugh believes. That's fine. Limbaugh makes 38 million a year because he's so, so entertaining to his twenty million listeners. Those listeners do not wish America to fail.

415 Last Man  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:22:36am

Sotomayor casually failed the top test takers in the New Haven fire department because of their race.
I hope Sotomayor fails in her ethnocentric judicial activism after she's comfirmed.

416 Curt  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:49:04am

re: #401 bungie

I'm wondering why no one remembers what the liberals did to Bork, Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada? They were vicious and it turned people off, but it was effective. I heard a few liberals say today without irony,"I'm so tired of this strife from both sides" with amusement. Funny how they want everything to be all congenial when they are in danger of being on the receiving end of a blow.

I had a lefty in our class Sunday decide to get on his high horse about how people are homeless in this richest nation....which came right on the heels of a 20 minute discussion of how to handle our next mission effort to help build affordable, useful furniture for same, in the complex being set up by another ministry. We had been down there three times to paint, cut tress, and clean up the units, a 4 hour drive from "home," out in the middle of the sugar cane fields of the Everglades. Mike never had come along on a single trip, nor added anything to the discussion about making good blueprints, using better fasteners, making sets and storing them disassembled for more cost effective transport and what was needed to assemble them onsite.

When I got a chance to talk, and I began with "how dare you lecture these men in this group about social responsibility" he put up his hands and said "We need to end this discussion now." One other man then said "No, we don't. You had you say, and now he has something to say."

I ended with "I know where just about everyone was in this room two Saturdays ago." Left unsaid was "And just where were you?"

Got a few thank yous from others afterwards. Wasn't looking for any, but just had to get that off my chest after months of "the greed of society" and "Now we have a President who will change things!" (Oh, yes, Mike had been out "registering voters" locally....) being tossed out at every chance...and had been ignored because of the forum.

417 danshelb  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:49:43am

So if we don't want Obama to fail, and we clearly don't want him to succeed (at least in pushing an ultra-liberal, dovish foreign policy, tax-hiking, big gov't nanny agenda), where does that leave us. As indifferent on the fate of the nation?

This isn't like watching a Latvia vs. Macedonia soccer game where nobody here cares about the outcome. We've all got skin in the game and a very vested interest in what policies this Administration "succeeds" at implementing and "fails" at implementing. I wouldn't care if history calls Obama the greatest, most successful president of all time, PROVIDED that it is because he is successful in something I back (e.g. strong national security) and not something the far left backs (e.g. gov't health care).

418 Curt  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:57:46am

re: #409 Twenglish

When Harry Reid Called Bush a failure and half the democrat party set out to trip him up under the auspice of the many party officials who also said that his policy were failed where were you ?

Didn't that man stand in front of a class of school kids and tell them the President of the United States was stupid?

I guess that falls under "he supported the Office of the President, just he didn't support the President."

I always learned you have to respect the office, but not the person. The first part takes priority. It also means you hold your tongue many times...except, of course, when you are being "highly patriotic" and Democrat.

419 right_wing2  Thu, May 28, 2009 6:15:13am

I don't see how, if Obama succeeds, that America can possibly succeed as well. The failure of his policies, such as kowtowing to our enemies, nominating racist radicals to the Supreme Court, and continuing & expanding the poor decision of the Bush administration to bail out and take over business, will mean that America will at least have a chance of becoming as great as we once were.

420 joshin  Thu, May 28, 2009 6:19:19am

Bah, I wish for reductionist politics to fail.

I also wish for the in-fighting on the anti-terrorist blogosphere to fail.

To quote an idiot that ran from the cops and threw the first punch... Can't we all get along?

-J

421 Zimriel  Thu, May 28, 2009 6:19:36am

re: #335 Zimriel

She is not a member of La Raza.

I have some crow to snack on this morning: Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza. I apologise to WestTexasJew (although he still should have given us a primary source).

I think membership in an anti-American, fascist organisation ought to disqualify her from the Supreme bench.

422 Zimriel  Thu, May 28, 2009 6:21:40am

Here is the source: American Bar Association. Search for "raza".

423 Fearless Fred  Thu, May 28, 2009 6:53:01am

re: #419 right_wing2

I don't see how, if Obama succeeds, that America can possibly succeed as well. The failure of his policies, such as kowtowing to our enemies, nominating racist radicals to the Supreme Court, and continuing & expanding the poor decision of the Bush administration to bail out and take over business, will mean that America will at least have a chance of becoming as great as we once were.

But, I thought he was gonna provide free health care for all of us?
/

424 Twenglish  Thu, May 28, 2009 7:21:30am

re: #411 Charles

Well actually I was right the hell here reading like I have been since 2002 , but I don't seem to recall you saying something of this nature then when Reid and his colleague moonbats were giving press conferences in 0order to call GW Bush a failure , and in comparison we are talking about the opinion of a private citizen who wishes only for the policies of a standing president to fail versus the wish of a senate majority leader and policy maker who also wished the same and even called Bush a failure.

I had this premonition that you might not care to elaborate on the crux of this problem, but in all fairness and inclusiveness you must acknowledge that it is totally unfair to only tag Limbaugh in post after post now for something that elected policy makers have been guilty of all along without making a fair mention of that fact too.

Did I miss something ?

425 Korla Pundit  Thu, May 28, 2009 8:19:23am

Put me down as somebody who doesn't get the notion that wanting Obama to "fail" is a bad thing. His goal is to make America "fail." Why should we wish him well in this endeavor?

I want him to fail in his attempt (so far successful, unfortunately) to put us so deep in debt that we will never dig out of it, despite the devastating taxes coming our way. Are you happy that he has successfully started dismantling our capitalist economy, taking over the banks, the financial sector, the car industry, and now on to the health care industry? He isn't "failing" there, although I still hold out hope that he will eventually fail. But that won't happen until somebody finds the backbone to stand up to him and his Chicago mobster tactics.

We need a "Have you no decency?" moment to stop this juggernaut in its tracks. But we won't get one, because there is no real opposition party. See, he can't fail. That's the problem. He has a supermajority in Congress, he has the press shielding the voters' eyes from inconvenient reality, he has criminals and foreign backers illegally helping him get elected, he has endless funds from mystery sources to keep getting elected, and he has a toothless opposition that insists on taking Play-Doh knives to a gun fight.

They have been fighting dirty, and we're all too concerned with not using the wrong word.

Should we cheer his successes in negating the rule of law by robbing bond holders to pay off his union henchmen? No failure there, but I sure wish there had been some. He has cracked the basis of trust in the system that made bonds secure. Why would anybody invest in such paper now?

I wanted him to fail to further politicize the war on terror for cheap points, but that didn't stop him from threatening to criminalize the previous administration's legal and policy decisions, and giving the enemy classified information that helps them resist interrogations. No, he was smashingly successful there.

Do you not want him to "fail" to hand the Census over to ACORN? A criminal organization that should be broken up and sent to prison is instead going to be submitting a fraudulent headcount, so in future elections, a lot more Congressmen will be allocated to the blue states. Then it doesn't matter how many fake votes ACORN can create. You only need to redraw districts. A new form of gerrymandering. Do you want this to succeed? Really?

Do you want card-check to sail through Congress and onto Barack's desk for signing? I know I want that to fail, too. But why should I be criticized for saying so?

See, here's the main point. If Obama really wanted this country to succeed, to be prosperous and safe, to be the leader of the free world, if he believed in American Exceptionalism, if he didn't hate this country and want the United Nations and Europe and China to take their rightful role as our moral superiors, then I would wish him success, regardless of his methods and policies.

When his goal is this nation's failure, then yes, I wish him to fail. What is so confusing about that?

426 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 9:59:09am

re: #424 Twenglish

Well actually I was right the hell here reading like I have been since 2002 , but I don't seem to recall you saying something of this nature then when Reid and his colleague moonbats were giving press conferences in 0order to call GW Bush a failure...

You know, there is a search function on this blog. It's pretty easy to use, if you really care to find out what I've written about Harry Reid. Maybe you should try that. Then I'll be expecting your apology for these idiotic remarks.

Did I miss something ?

Yes, you missed a hell of a lot.

427 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 10:00:14am

It's amazing how many people want to take this absolutist view that not wishing for Obama to "fail" has to mean you'll be "cheering him on to success."

Is it really that difficult to read what I wrote?

428 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, May 28, 2009 10:16:24am

re: #427 Charles

It's amazing how many people want to take this absolutist view that not wishing for Obama to "fail" has to mean you'll be "cheering him on to success."

Is it really that difficult to read what I wrote?

Charles,

You know I respect you immensely. I suppose that I am surprised that you expect any different. Black and white thought is the mark of truly little minds. People in general do not wish to be burdened with little details like consequences or deeper analysis. When you force them to do that, you challenge their deeply held delusion that they hold all the answers and are, infallible voices of clarity in a world that frightens them.

The GOP has lurched deeply into the territory of the us vs. them mentality. If it is done by "them" it must be wrong. If it is done by "us" it must be right. It's no different on the moonbat side really. It's just a different flavor of absolutist idiot.

You have bravely and correctly stood out for basic reason. This pisses people off. You know this. People in general will not read what you wrote if they think it challenges them. It is too much work, and the stakes of having to come up with a better, but less simple world view are too daunting.

Again, you know this.

I simply don't know why you let idiots bother you so much. They ain't worth your spit.

429 Korla Pundit  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:18:10pm

>It's amazing how many people want to take this absolutist view that not wishing for Obama to "fail" has to mean you'll be "cheering him on to success."

You don't have to wish for him to fail. But wishing him to fail doesn't mean you want the country to fail under his "leadership." It means quite the opposite. It means you want the country to survive despite his attempts at converting it to a socialist state and appeasing our dangerous enemies.

And we are going to see a failed socialist state right out of the gate, considering how we've already run out of money, and can't borrow much more. It might be more appealing to some if we at least started out with a socialist state that gave out goodies to people. We are certainly going to end up with the "steal from the rich" part of the redistribution agenda, but the "give to the poor" element will be missing. And "rich" means different things to different people.

I guess the irony is that by saying one wants Obama to fail, they really mean they want him to succeed, but you have to redefine "succeed" as meaning something other than "being successful in achieving ones goals." But it's a lot more straightforward to say "he has plans for us and we want those plans to fail." The success of these plans would be very, very bad for everybody, especially those whom Obama claims to represent, ie, the "poor."

On a tangent, demonizing Rush and Cheney for their "small tent" comments is absurd. People like Colin Powell and Arlen Specter absolutely abandoned the party, even though one of them still hasn't had the courage to make it official. The attrition of the GOP is not caused by a lack to embrace the statist, high-tax, pro-Amnesty, anti-defense position of the Democrats. Heck, the GOP even nominated somebody who fit that description, and they lost because of it.

The reason they are losing people is that they no longer offer an alternative to the Democrats. They are too willing to cross the aisle, and they have no guiding principles that can't be overridden by some juicy earmark for their district. The GOP is definitely losing ground because they are shunning people, but it's their traditional base that has been given the cold shoulder.

There are people still out there who want low taxes, a strong defense, victory in war, free trade, Constitutional Originalism, secure borders, access to natural resources, checks against corruption and pork, and guarantees of sovereignty that cannot be usurped by foreign courts or international cartels. The GOP no longer fights for such things, if it ever really did.

Going the other way and saying most people want higher taxes and more government handouts is ridiculous for Colin Powell to claim, and for him to endorse Obama over McCain showed that it didn't matter what the GOP offered.

430 tomservo  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:21:11pm

Charles, you've been a great resource of information. But I would like to ask you concerning wanting someone to fail, you want the Arabs to fail in their quest to destroy Israel, right? You've been vociferous in that advocation. So why is it any different here? Why can't we be as vociferous about President Obama's policies failing as we are about Arabs policies failing? You could make the same argument concerning "moderate" Arabs and other undecided folks on this issue, right? That if you're constantly harping on their "failure" that they'll be "turned off".

Is there another way to put it? There are other schmucks out there like Mike Savage who is just a really angry person that really does give the rout to any kind of debate about issues, but I think that Rush's comment of Obama Failing is fair.

Anyway, I do appreciate what you do and your "outspokeness" will ne'er deter me from reading your site for some of the best information around! Keep up the good work, even when I don't totally agree with you! Thanks Charles!

431 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:26:37pm

Every poll shows the number of people who identify as "Republicans" in drastic decline. Every study shows that the GOP is hemorrhaging voters. The last two elections have been flat-out disastrous for the Republican Party. Democrats now control the Presidency and both houses of Congress.

So yeah -- let's drive out all the centrists and moderates and keep insisting we want Obama to FAIL! FAIL! FAIL!

Wouldn't want to interrupt that losing streak by actually starting to use our brains, would we?

432 Yashmak  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:29:27pm

re: #428 ludwigvanquixote

Black and white thought is the mark of truly little minds. People in general do not wish to be burdened with little details like consequences or deeper analysis.

Of course they don't want to be so burdened. They're busy trying to figure out how to make rent, updating the playlist on their iPods, or trying to make the next lease payment on their SUV's.

The bureaucracy of our government has become so convoluted, that many Americans throw up their hands in frustration, and instead trust the talking heads to tell them what they should think about the issues.

433 Yashmak  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:33:18pm

re: #430 tomservo

Charles, you've been a great resource of information. But I would like to ask you concerning wanting someone to fail, you want the Arabs to fail in their quest to destroy Israel, right? You've been vociferous in that advocation. So why is it any different here?

Uh, because the Arabs aren't our countrymen? Because a failure on their part isn't directly tied to each of our economic well-being? If Obama fails disastrously, as folks like Rush have expressed hope for, it will mean hardship for a huge number of Americans. Surely you can see the difference.

434 D. Lapin  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:47:54pm

This hero-worship of Charles is getting a little nausea inducing.

435 Korla Pundit  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:08:40pm

The GOP held majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency. That was BEFORE they started lurching leftward, trying to force the Amnesty program through. That was the end of their majority. Despite what the leftist media claim, the loss of GOP members didn't come from the mythical "center." It came from the conservative and libertarian sides.

There is very little center to choose from when both parties embrace the same terrible policies.

The GOP, if it wants to survive, needs to embrace SOMETHING for starters. They need to spell out their core principles, and they must not depart from these principles in the name of compromise. Only then will people feel that it is a party that represents them.

Being all wishy-washy about appealing to so-called centists, which really refers to people who will always vote Democrat, is misguided. They are not centrist at all. Look what they voted for, the current results of that vote, and their continued support for the total amateur they elected. Anybody who still supports the actions of this awful President is clearly closer to socialist than conservative.

Maybe they're centrally between Communist and Marxist. They're on the fence.

436 Yashmak  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:18:32pm

re: #435 Korla Pundit

The GOP held majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency. That was BEFORE they started lurching leftward, trying to force the Amnesty program through.

That was before ALOT of other things you don't mention, like an end of fiscal discipline, a war that was unpopular with many independents, and an administration that refused to make its case to the American people.

That was the end of their majority. Despite what the leftist media claim, the loss of GOP members didn't come from the mythical "center." It came from the conservative and libertarian sides.

I've never seen any data to indicate that's the case, other than some pre-election threats to stay home instead of voting for the Republican candidate. What is known is that independents and centrists flocked to the Democratic side of the ticket in much larger numbers than in prior elections.

The GOP, if it wants to survive, needs to embrace SOMETHING for starters. They need to spell out their core principles, and they must not depart from these principles in the name of compromise. Only then will people feel that it is a party that represents them.

At the same time, they need to understand that if they insist on embracing exclusionary principles, which only resonate with some of their registered voters, fewer people will choose this party as the one that represents them, and they'll continue to lose elections.

437 tomservo  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:56:37pm

re: #433 Yashmak

Uh, because the Arabs aren't our countrymen? Because a failure on their part isn't directly tied to each of our economic well-being? If Obama fails disastrously, as folks like Rush have expressed hope for, it will mean hardship for a huge number of Americans. Surely you can see the difference.

In my opinion, I really think that the country needs to experience a disaster of this type in order to really demonstrate the disastrous effects of these policies. To that end, I should be saying Obama should succeed with his current policies, which will lead to disaster. My responsibility as an opposition IMO, is to oppose those policies, and if you truly think those policies are going to lead to disaster, then yeah, you'd want those policies to fail!

438 tomservo  Thu, May 28, 2009 4:02:01pm

re: #431 Charles

Every poll shows the number of people who identify as "Republicans" in drastic decline. Every study shows that the GOP is hemorrhaging voters. The last two elections have been flat-out disastrous for the Republican Party. Democrats now control the Presidency and both houses of Congress.

So yeah -- let's drive out all the centrists and moderates and keep insisting we want Obama to FAIL! FAIL! FAIL!

Wouldn't want to interrupt that losing streak by actually starting to use our brains, would we?

Thanx for responding to me Charles! But we've been having these people run with a platform of "we're just like Democrats, we just direct the money to different places" and we all get this bloated Government we're all stuck with. So voting for these pigs is no longer viable, nor is pretending to be Democrat lite.

If the GOP goes down, so be it! I can easily find a home in the Libertarian party, where there is a little more brain going on - sans the Ron Paulies of which I am not one!

And don't forget, a lot of Democrats one by running Right... and then heading right back left after they got in. It's the Arnold Schwarznegger and Arlen Spectors that have been killing us. Not standing up and saying policies that can cause disaster should fail. Thanx for responding to me Charles! I can still haz Lizard status?

439 Ezekiel2517  Thu, May 28, 2009 4:15:00pm

I'm just shocked that Charles hasn't yet gone after Sotomayor for being a Creationist.

///

440 Athens Runaway  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:07:07pm

re: #224 Flyers1974

Carville may be a major player for you, but you are politically saavy enough to be posting on a political blog. I don't think your average person would consider him a huge player. They may know the name, but probably not much more. We are discussing why Limbaugh's comment recieved more attention than Carville's. Therefore, Carville's lack of a megaphone explains different treatment. As far as the leader of the GOP being a businessman, well it is easy to play to the base when you do not have to run for re-election. All he must do is figure out what the base wants. No hard decisions to make. Which of course is fine by me. Just sayin.

Yeah, random, non-famous people guest-star on Family Guy or Will Farrell movies. He has absolutely no face-time on TV, and is an absolute unknown to non-politicos. //

441 Gordan the Fisherman  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:27:13pm

re: #439 Ezekiel2517

I'm just shocked that Charles hasn't yet gone after Sotomayor for being a Creationist.

///

That's because she is only going to be on the SCOTUS and not the Texas School Board.

442 Fearless Fred  Thu, May 28, 2009 10:01:05pm

re: #103 Racer X

Damn that Bush! I want him to die, Die, DIE!

vs.

I want Obama's policies to fail.

Thank you.

443 Twenglish  Thu, May 28, 2009 10:10:10pm

re: #426 Charles

Charles ,

Moi Appologize ?

Excuse me sir , but for what reason ?


I searched LGF using the various combinations of the following words in the search term: Harry Reid : Bush is a Failure , and Failure in Iraq .

I Came up with Nada !

Yeah I guess I could be a little sorry about that because I was really hoping I was wrong ....

444 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 10:11:55pm

re: #443 Twenglish

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

445 Neo_  Fri, May 29, 2009 7:55:15am
The Republican Party is in reactionary denial mode, refusing to look at the real problems that cost them the last two major elections. Unless the party can find a positive message and articulate it clearly, we’re going to have Democratic presidents for the foreseeable future.

This is sort of like doing your best not to mention that the Titanic is sinking with a large ghash causing the ship to take on water, while trying to say that the orchestra is playing very nicely and the moon looks beautiful.

446 lorien1973  Fri, May 29, 2009 8:11:44am

I'm curious what, exactly, you'd like Obama to succeed with.

Do you enjoy the nationalization of GM? With the government owning 72% of a private company?

Do you enjoy the $10 trillion in debt he's piling up over the next decade? And the bailouts and the coming inflation because of the money we are printing?

Do you enjoy him putting unelected people into positions of power? With more czars than Russia could have imagined?

Do you like the idea that everything flows through and from Washington?

Are you looking forward to him nationalizing the medical industry?

How about the idea of us buying our debt with our own debt. Is that a good policy right now?

If you don't want him to "fail" - what policies of his do you want to succeed, exactly. Do tell.

447 korla pundit  Fri, May 29, 2009 9:44:01am
I searched LGF using the various combinations of the following words in the search term: Harry Reid : Bush is a Failure , and Failure in Iraq .

I Came up with Nada !

Come now, you can't really accuse Charles of being gentle with Harry Reid or any of the antiwar saboteurs of our defense:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

But worse, how can you even use Reid's shameful demagogy as a comparison? He wasn't just wishing for Bush to fail in implementing his economic and social policies. He was actively giving aid and comfort and free propaganda to the enemy in wartime, and emboldening the terrorist deadenders in Iraq, encouraging them to hold out for just a few more months to yield an American surrender. How many American and Iraqi lives did such statements cost? We'll never know.

It's not a helpful comparison. But that is the type of comment the Dem spin machine wanted to paint Rush's comment to be. And I refuse to accept their spin. I understand Charles' distaste for the "fail" comment, and the idea that we should rise above the childish performance the other side put on for eight years.

But I disagree on two levels. First, this doesn't even begin to approach the level of vitriol and sometimes outright treason that the other side committed during this war; it was a statement of defiance, that even though Obama won the election and had an unstoppable majority in Congress, I am holding out hope that he still fails to carry out his destructive policies, and I will do everything in my meager power to help stop him. But in summation: I hope he fails.

Second, the fiscal conservative, pro-defense, pro-Constitution, anti-jihadi, anti-lawlessness, pro-states' rights side of the nation needs to be more willing to get into a good scrap. We're too busy being nice, too busy being more gentlemanly and sporting than the raving savages on the Left. Meanwhile they're mopping up the floor with our apologetic faces.

We need to be more willing to fight for what we believe, while keeping within the bounds of decency, and always putting the good of the country above any partisan concern. But let's not pretend things are what they are not. Let's call a statist a statist. Let's be honest about where these corrupt bullies are taking this nation. And let's not worry about whether or not our elected officials' feelings are being hurt by the statements of private citizens.

448 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 29, 2009 12:20:14pm

re: #443 Twenglish

Charles ,

Moi Appologize ?

Excuse me sir , but for what reason ?

I searched LGF using the various combinations of the following words in the search term: Harry Reid : Bush is a Failure , and Failure in Iraq .

I Came up with Nada !

Yeah I guess I could be a little sorry about that because I was really hoping I was wrong ....

Oh, for Pete's sake. OK, I'll hold your hand for you:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Still waiting for that apology.

449 Priscilla  Sun, May 31, 2009 5:48:51am
We need to be more willing to fight for what we believe, while keeping within the bounds of decency, and always putting the good of the country above any partisan concern. But let's not pretend things are what they are not. Let's call a statist a statist. Let's be honest about where these corrupt bullies are taking this nation. And let's not worry about whether or not our elected officials' feelings are being hurt by the statements of private citizens.

Here, here.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 441 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1