Self-serving RINO Powell, an arm-chair general, is a racist, but Limbaugh is 'delusional?'
What crowd do you hang with, John?
Accepting, even as Christ Himself suggested, that salvation (immortality) is not only quite probable, but entirely unavoidable, puts us in the unenviable position of Jorge Luis Borges' "(The) Immortal"(s) who are said to exist largely within the sordid labyrinths of pure thought where infinite time and possibility render any given circumstance impossible not to be; where "no one is anyone; one single immortal man is all men... god(s)... hero(s)... philosopher(s)... demon(s)... world; which is a tedious way of saying that I do not exist."1
Despite its endless appeal in the temporal world, immortality is a position so desperately untenable, even God Himself seems loath to endure it; and so, the story goes, He sent His only son (for what?) to die; or, at least to give the appearance of such. As Borges writes three paragraphs later, "Death (or its allusion) makes men precious and pathetic. They are moving because of their phantom condition; every act they execute may be their last... Everything among mortals has the value of the irretrievable and the perilous."
As John Batchelor himself has often brilliantly illustrated, the Republican Party is dying. There are of course those who seek to keep it alive, each for their own (often nostalgic) reasons; but word out on the street has it that extraordinary life-saving measures will no longer suffice. There continues to be some justification for keeping the brand alive, however. Third parties have seldom fared well in American politics. Colin Powell, ‘moderate’ Republican, continues to plead his case, saying that the only way to expand the Republican tent is to become more like Democrats. Rush Limbaugh, along with the other radio talk firebrands, promotes just the opposite. He is banking on the belief that when the American voters are given a clear alternative, they will vote Republican. He further stipulates that the Democrat brand is seriously flawed, which Democrats have accepted as a declaration of war.
No doubt, Democrats appear to be winning at the moment. These are difficult times, however. The public is in no mood for partisan political squabbling. It is widely accepted that the person who can end the bickering will be king. Policy never enters into this two-dimensional ‘solution’. Obama was elected solely for his potential to end the rancor while his policy positions went largely unchallenged.
Now policy differences are once again beginning to surface. In order to maintain the ‘no-squabbling’ fiction, there is only one way to go: go with the winner. This is the policy Colin Powell has adopted. Obama too seems to be following a similar track when dealing internationally. He obviously thinks Marxists and dictators are winning as he appears to have decided to play on their team. Limbaugh, on the other hand, offers an untested (since Reagan) alternative which is making Democrats and Republican moderates nervous. Many have settled into comfortably lucrative public careers; they have no stomach for confrontation. They have no taste for enduring the obligatory flogging in the public square with the (partisan) press presiding.
Whenever a politician speaks and someone responds, and then the first one speaks again in response to the response, you can bet the farm a strategy is underway. Colin Powell, reacting to Limbaugh’s criticism signals that Democrats are drawing a bead on the Republican Party. The plan is to topple it from within; to hollow it out until the walls collapse. The name will stay to give the illusion of a multi-party system, but the fangs and claws will have been extracted and replaced with rubber (yes) stamps. It’s meant to perpetuate the fiction of two separate parties working together in sublime harmony for the good of the nation, world, solar system, universe…
The media narrative runs something like this: Obama has been chosen almost by divine decree to accomplish this and more. A king’s motives are never questioned. As such, whether we realize it or not, we have freely chosen to scrap democracy in favor of clearly antiquated feudal governance. Limbaugh and others who are screaming bloody murder, have been assigned the role of court jester. The king will decide whether they’ll live or die.
But, as we have seen, nothing ever dies. Limbaugh will continue in his various avatars; the Dems will stumble on the very notion they are banking on to save them: being too big to fail; and all will continue as before. It’d be the illusion of death that would give us the surge. The caution for Democrats is to closely watch the dying. It is they who are the most dangerous – for they have nothing to lose. ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 Taken from the short story, "The Immortal", chapter IV, by Jorge Luis Borges. LABYRINTHS: Selected Stories and Other Writings, copyright 1962 by New Directions Publishing Corp., pg. 114-5
Please recall that Rush has built a huge radio audience on the ability to do 2 things: 1) entertain; and 2) appear to be consistent in his position while changing his position when the facts change (ie. opposing McCain during the primary then supporting him during the general).
As to 1, either he is entertaining or he isn't. Apparently 20 million people a week find him exactly that.
As to 2, he long ago announced his wish to see our Boy (not boy in the racist sense, but boy in the still a child sense) President fail at his quest to turn our country into a faint shadow of what it once was. I predict Rush will be consistent in this pursuit for the next 4 years, and will reap ratings gold as a result (amusingly, MSNBC, the Democrat Party house TV network, seems to think he is ratings gold too, as they spend the entire day gasping in mock horror at things Rush has said in the last 24 hours).
At the same time, Rush will continue what I believe is a genuine effort to help recreate the Republican Party. And as someone who spent 10+ years as an active Republican in Michigan, I am here to tell you that the seeds of today's party failure were sown 20 years ago. The struggle between the principled conservatives and the moderates (what do they really stand for besides trying to win?) to control the Republican party has been lost by the principled conservatives. And now the moderates are lost in the wilderness. Colin Powell might be black, but he isn't rock star enough to compete with Barack Obama. Dick Cheney, a principled conservative, could lead us back, but he's earned his retirement after 8 years of yeoman work on national defense. Another principled conservative (not Michael Steele, unfortunately, who is a good man but who melts too easily in the klieg lights) will have to emerge to take the party forward. It won't be Rush because he doesn't want to take the pay cut.
But to the point: Sotomayor IS a reverse racist. Even if she isn't, she's a judicial activist who has admitted on tape that she legislates outcomes from the bench rather than judging cases on their merits. See Ricci v. DeStefano. She got her head handed to her by a Clinton appointee upon appeal.
Her confirmation will be the turning point, the day when our fine country begins its march into darkness. The government of the United States will become an inward looking ever larger transfer payments pump, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor while bad men around the world fill the vacuum created by Obama's undoing of what Reagan worked so hard to build and Bush 43 tried but failed to maintain.
And I'm now a registered Libertarian. I have more in common with them than with the current disaster called the Republican Party.
RUSH LIMBAUGH, LIKE HOWARD STERN, THRIVES ON CONTROVERSY
RL is making news, getting attention and boosting his radio show's audience. In turn, his advertisers will pay more money to get his increasingly larger audience. His genius is in self promotion. This doesn't make him a spokesman for anything but himself. He doesn't even have to believe in what he's saying. John's reference to McCarthy hits the nail on the head.
When Benjamin Franklin moved to Philly to start Poor Richard's Almanac he also needed to promote himself. So he predicted that his main competitor would die on a date certain. This started BF's career and made a fool of his rival -- who also, through horoscopes, predicted events. No one will ever outdo Franklin.
The serious challenge for anyone today: Who can start a legitimate third party?
Rush is funny and presents a different point of view. I appreciate a diversity of opinion.
This may or may not follow from JB's and PK's comments. Frankly I sometimes have some problem even following what the two of you say. You speak in some sort of veiled semi-coded language. Over my humble head I suppose.
Powell is an interesting study. I have no idea what the guy stands for. He says he's a moderate Rep. OK? what does HE mean by Republican? By moderate? open up the tent to whom? be specific! Latino's? black's? gays? journalists? who does he have in mind that the party has rejected? and, does this mean the party would adapt its ideology to lure them in and in the process become the Democrat party? HOw is that improving the party?
I'd say he is without ideology or maybe even without idea. Just go along to get along. blend in. be the watercooler (allusion to the old Xerox commercial), have it both ways, be able to side with any side, don't offend, recoil at conflict and disagreement, be a soft uncle kind of guy.
I want my leaders and politicians to believe something strongly; to push back at ideas that conflict; push strongly for what one thinks is the "righter" way. I can't stand BO but at least he does this to an extent.
There's no way to build a party around mealy mouths who just want to fit in. Give me a target to shoot at or embrace. Powell is just cotton balls flowing from a pie hole.
I think by "moderate" these guys are either saying-- 1.) let's be a bit compromising on principle (whatever principle, it goes for the moderate Leftist as well) in order to cooperate with the "other side" and achieve something more than nasty rhetorical fist-a-cuffs. Or else it means, 2.) let's distance ourselves from the Messianic Judeo-Christian sect of the right wing, who aren't doing anything for our public image. Cynically, it might also be 3.) acknowledging fear of the Left's ability to assasinate characters who disagree with them, and so such a placating position is an attempt at public cover, assuming a partisan position while behind the scenes toiling at their real work.
For what it's worth, I would call myself a Classical Liberal of the Hayek/Von Mises school and have absolutely zero interest in the religious/fundamentalist aspects of the Republican Party (or any party), and that largely keeps people like me away from active affiliation. As much as I loathe the Left's agenda, it doesn't make me immediately fall in with the Right. I also see the Republicans as shamefully corrupt (just like the Democrats) and often betraying their own stated principles, so I'm not gonna carry a flag for them. I don't see myself as an "independent", since I have principles and don't see the Repubs and Demos as the only 2 options. If I can be bothered to discuss politics in mixed company at all (usually a minefield of insults and boring "Bush did it" jabs, not worth the effort), I say I'm a "libertarian". I understand we live in a Constitutional Republic, I fully support the Bill Of Rights and States' rights, I love this country and I am in every instance distrustful of-- and opposed to--big government, and so my position is often seen as right wing. But it's too tiresome to discuss this stuff in casual company, since so few people take the time to learn anything-- including how to have an honest, respectful disagreement, happy instead to jerk their knees at this and that.
Rush lost me years ago on that "magic negro" type humor. It must play well in his circle but it's embarrassing to a man who lives with a beautiful mixed race woman, as I do. He and Hannity are good on certain issues (anything involving the Constitution or "original intent" for the Supremes, anti-Communism/Socialism), but that's about it for me.
Anyway, we're probably on the verge of a big regional flare-up someplace in the Middle East or Asia, so all this is just keeping time until something big and bad happens. God forbid.
JimJinNJ - I want my leaders and politicians to believe something strongly; to push back at ideas that conflict; push strongly for what one thinks is the "righter" way.
You're right; that's exactly what we've got. And we don't like it; do we? From now on it's Obama's way or no way. And we all know how East Germany turned out. Rush knows what he stands for; he's been consistent. He's explained his positions in detail. I can agree with most of what he says. - There! Kiss of death! I've said it!
Just as Republican dominance radicalized the Democrat Party to a nutroots bent and nomination of the most liberal Senator to run for the Presidency, we shall see the mirror image occur next. And it is being done with prodding from the Obama/Rahm/Carville corner as they elevate Limbaugh, long named as the "extreme right". But guess what, Obama/Reid/Pelosi are sowing the seeds for their own Gotterdamerung. The more that people pay attention to the entertaining Limbaugh while their own standard of living fails, the more appealing his message becomes. Remember Reagan's question in 1980 - "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" In October 2012, the answer for all but the political class and the governing elite will be a resounding "NO!". Limbaugh won't be the leader, he is too flawed as a candidate. A relative no name must arise from the Right and unapologetically preach the economic and national security positions that can be supported by the Rush, Cheney, and Ron Paul "extremists". This is not unlike what Reagan did - but I think this time it may be more urgent, more shrill, and more polarizing.
In my youth, I was what I would describe as a Kennedy Democrat. That party left me. Abandoned me to emphasize the hippie left and me first hedonists of the Boomer generation. As a front end Gen-X'er, I resent what the Boomers have done to my country and the generations that follow them. They were given a great gift of peace and prosperity by their parents and they have squandered it on adolescent fantasies. It is perhaps too harsh, but I won't be disappointed to hear that they will all fade faster as the result of their pill popping faux fountain of life lifestyle so that Generations X, Y & Z can return the nation to austerity and glory. The flirtation with Signor HopeAndChange as a youthful indiscretion by Gen Y/Z that they will never forget. This country is setting up for a very hard right turn, harder than 1980.
I am to believe that Powell, who endorsed and voted for Obama, and Ridge, whose voting record was somewhere to the left of Arlen Spectre are the future of the Republican party? If I must throw my lot in with someone, i'll take my chances with the Limbaugh/Cheney wing.
It has been said that effective politicians dont move to the center, they move the center to them.
"This country is setting up for a very hard right turn, harder than 1980."
No.
Like virtually everybody who posts on this website, you're paying no attention to how radically the demographics of America have changed since 1980 (thanks, ironically, to the GOP's Open Borders policy). Note that McCain carried the same slices of the demographic pie that Reagan did, and by roughly the same percentages, yet he still lost by a fairly big margin.
You're paying no attention to how radically the demographics of America have changed since 1980
I am aware of the Demographics. Yes, Obama won the poor, black, young, Jewish, and urban votes. He faced a weak, mealy centrist opponent. Many people who did not want Obama to win stayed home, because McCain was uninspiring. Among the other Demographics, it was close enough with the advantage going to the challenger after eight years of Bush fatigue. Circumstances will be different in 2012. How many young people do you know that say, "we voted for change and we just got more of the same - I don't know why I bothered voting."
In the end Carville was right - "it's the economy, stupid." Check at the bottom of the graph - the single most important issue was the economy. It was 6X more important than the next tier of issues (Iraq, Health Care, and Terrorism). For everyone who's first vote was for Obama, this is a right-eous lesson. No doubt, the Dems will try to blame it all on Bush, but by the end of this year no one will be listening to that. After all, the Dems promised us that the $2,000,000,000,000 in stimulus and bailouts would fix things. It won't. In fact, today the bond market vigilantes are drawing a bright line in the sand for Ben & Tim.
Now, we know that the President, in normal times doesn't control the economy. We also know that the President doesn't control fiscal policy, that's the preserve of the Congress. But how many times have we heard blame/credit for an up/down economy directed at Nixon/Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush41/Clinton/Bush43? Now it's O's turn and there is no escape from Ragnarok. The long end of the yield curve is rising, that will bring up mortgage rates, that will increase defaults, that will stress banks, that will freeze credit again, that will undermine equities, that will spook management, who will lay people off, who will not pay their mortgages and credit cards and car loans, further stressing the banks, etc. You get the picture. It's the economy and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
During PG I, while working at the lab, we listened to various radio broadcasts to keep up with the "shock and awe" effort against those nasty Elite Republican Guards and this is when I heard RL for the first time and talk radio in general. My impression of RL was that he was a plain talker with a crisp, contagious manner, a vehement patriot, and, of course, an egotistical self promoter.
At the time, what I thought was clarity coming over the waves was made real one day when a caller made it through after waiting for however long and told RL that he was in Montana or Wyoming somewhere, down at his barn cleaning the stalls. He said that he didn't possess a silver tongue or a mastery of the language like Rush did and he really didn't have anything to say other than just wanting to let RL know that he and him did have one thing in common though and it involved a certain activity with a shovel. He may have said that they both are real good at what they do, too. Anyway, RL laughed, as he still does today (Hahhaha, trailing off), and told the man that he had made a good point and probably sent him a book or something, I'm not sure.
I don't listen to him and haven't for a long time, but, I do remember that caller back then and ever since have always taken RL to be a plain talker with crisp manner, a vehement patriot, and, of course, an egotistical self promoter... "Hehehehe"
JB, I know from your previous articles that you do not listen to talk radio. I suggest you start, especially before deciding to blast Rush Limbaugh based on what Democrats are saying about him. Rush called Sotomayor a racist because that is what she is--BASED ON HER OWN WORDS. She stated that she would be a better judge than a white man, because of her unique background as an Hispanic. That is not what being a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be about--they are supposed to interpret the law and the Constitution. Clearly, that is not what Obama wants the Supreme Court to do, and that is not what Sotomayor intends to do if confirmed. It is also a racist statement. It is about time some Republican pointed this out.
I for one am sick of Rino Republicans who just roll over and accept whatever Obama wants, whether it is nationalizing the banks, nationizing the auto companies, or packing the court with liberal judicial activists. Rush is merely pointing out what the Republican leadership ought to be pointing out--if they had any leadership. It is obvious that Colin Powell is not really a Republican, since he consistently votes for Democrats for President, including Obama. If the leadership had any guts, they would show him the door, the way the Dems did to Lieberman. But then, if they had any guts, they wouldn't be the party out of power right now.
I guarantee you JB that if you listened to Rush for a couple of weeks, you would find him to be a brilliant man, rather than the Joe McCarthy clone the liberal Democrats are painting him as.
"Circumstances will be different in 2012. "
Indeed they will. Hispanics will then comprise an even higher percentage of the American electorate than was the case in 2008. Even if all immigration, legal and illegal, stopped tomorrow, birth rate differentials will see to this. And for whatever reason, Hispanic voters usually pull the Democratic lever, as McAmnesty--who now refers to them as "you people"--learned the hard way. Can the same GOP that has been utterly unsucessful at wooing more than a tenth of black voters ever reasonably expect to win anywhere close to half of Hispanic voters? If the past is any guide to the future, then the answer must be no.
My fundamental point, which I must restate, since you missed it before, is that McCain won the same demographics in more or less the same proportions that Reagan did in the Eighties. That was enough to give Reagan the White House, but not McCain. It is unlikely bordering on inconceivable that any Republican candidate will ever do as well as Reagan did.
The GOP is indeed dead. Demography is destiny.
The Irish and many off the boat Catholics voted Democratic for generations. then the radical left took over the party and told Catholics their values were not welcome. Hispanics will vote Republican, unlike other people of Color they do not have the same loyalty to the Democratic party, nor do they share their values.
Democrats have abortions, Republicans have Babies.
Sapientia
I note that whenever Rush is mentioned, it generates a lot of comment both for and against. Any non-Obama Cool-Aid drinker who wants to keep Rush locked up in the attic, like some crazy aunt or uncle, is missing the point. Knepper is right. Listen for a couple of weeks and shed your media-inspired prejudice. Consider how many 'crazy' uncles and aunts the Dems have running around. They're consistently hyped up as 'learned', 'respected', 'visionary' and whatever else. Several of them have been awarded Nobel prizes and honorary college degrees - all of it utter garbage. One has even been elected POTUS. Soon, we'll have one sitting on the highest court in the land. But none of this is scary to anybody - only Rush is scary! Huh?
The divide in this country is between conservative and liberal. The divide in the Republican Party is between conservative and liberal. The divide in the Democrat party is between liberal and liberal. Do the math! I'm a conservative. As long as we keep throwing people overboard, we'll never bring this country back to sanity. Don't ever expect to convince the (Goebbles) press. Just convince the people. Rush is doing just exactly that. And I, for one , am not ashamed to say it.
While I love your show, I have to disagree with you on this. I do find this woman to be a) egotistical; b) racist; c) partial rather than impartial and unsuitable to be a Supreme Court Justice.
She is not special because she happens to be hispanic and she has no right to a Supreme Court seat (nor does anyone else). She has no right to MAKE POLICY as she claims, which shows serious ignorance of, or total disrespect for her place in the American Constitutional order.
And having worked more than a dozen years among her ethnic group, the problems with that group are not based on anyone else's actions but their own---egotism, pride without accomplishments, high rates of illegitimacy and disrespect for education and hard work. Instead of stealing from the hard working and making excuses and blaming others, how about it if she would tell her latinas to stop having illegitmate children, read a book get an education, work hard and marry if you want to have children.
It's offensive for her to say she can make better decisions than a white man--if it were stated the other way around the man's career would be destroyed. She doesn't get a pass--well she does from liberals, but she shouldn't. A good number of her cases are overruled by the Supreme Court, so she isn't all that great a judge, is she?
Justice is supposed to be blind, not looking at the color or gender of the litigants, but the principles of the law. Perhaps she should start reading teh Constitution and Justice Story's commentaries. I would find her comments offensive whatever background they came from.
How about she think of herself as an AMERICAN and be THANKFUL for the fact that she got a great education all paid for by American taxpayers. I'm glad she (like Clarence Thomas) got out of poverty (but then, with all her need paid for by taxpayers like me, was she really poor? Clarence Thomas didn't even have shoes until he was eight years old and worked even as a child--he was poor. She was not. And by the way, why are we all slaves to the so-called poor and idolize them when our so called ppor havce more than my parents or grandparents ever had and in some ways than I have. About about some respect for those who work and pay the bills? How about telling the so called poor to pay attention in school, keep your legs closed and not have illegitimate children, get a job, learn some manners and get married if you want to have kids--then you won't be poor.
I've taught over ten years in the Bronx and there are many many excellent teachers there. The problem is we have (and these are majority hispanic) kids who come to school simply to talk talk talk talk talk ALL Day about gangs and sex and have no interest in learning anything. They could, with a little effort, truly quailify for a good college, but htey think they are supposed to get passed simply for showing up even if they do absolutely no work. They could get into colleges with lower grades andz SAT scores than white or asian students and get more scholarship money---but don't do the minimum and then claim they're discrminated against, which is not true. It's lack of effort. This entitlement mentality drags down the education of kids who do want to learn.
Every ethnic group had it tough at the beginning--and everything was not published in Italian or Polish or Chinese. There were no ESL or bilingual classes, but the behavior was better and the achievement levels higher. This woman has an atttitude inappropriate and offensive.
I believe it is what will be seen as the rise of the Independents.
What is the (oh, I hate to use the word) "worldview" of those who participate in democracy? This may explain the Obama simplicity rather than demographics or race.
Nothing new in campaign rhetoric and strategy. "Change" and "Yes, we can" are old hat from deep within the 20th Century.
What has either party done to evoke their chosen mantras, whatever they are?
Witness the rise of the Independent... it's coming. To me, this is what Powell is representing.
However, all of this distracts from the tasks at hand... for instance:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/25/untold.stories.damon.iraq/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Also, both parties rate up there with going to ChuckE Cheeses for a birthday party. You get a dummy programmed to twist and turn obnoxiously, rapping to elementary themes designed to entertain children; you get some tokens for games that pay off like a casino (for $20 you end up with choosing between a squishy ball or a kewl sporty keychain); don’t forget the big screens with fairy tale stories that your kids can participate in if not too shy to feign being a star in front of the crowd; and a crummy, unhealthy feed from the trough... all for way too much dinero, too. Ahh, but, the Memories!
Take a minute and read the story linked above for a dose of reality!
>The Irish and many off the boat Catholics voted Democratic for generations. then the radical left took over the party and told Catholics their values were not welcome.
So? Obama still carried the Catholic vote in last year's presidential election by a margin of nine points, 54 to 45 percent.
>Hispanics will vote Republican, unlike other people of Color they do not have the same loyalty to the Democratic Party
Exit polls weren’t as good nine years ago as they are today, but somewhere between 31% and 38% of Hispanic voters pulled the lever for Bush back in 2000, depending on whose numbers you believe. Bush managed to boost that to 40%--not the 44% that Rove falsely claimed for him last year in the Wall Street Journal— in 2004, mostly likely due to the catastrophic housing bubble in the Sand States that he helped engineer as a keystone of his campaign strategy. And John (“You people”) McCain got 32% of the Hispanic vote in 2008.
In a remarkable feat of miniaturization, you have manged to squeeze four other basic mistakes into your brief post, but I grow weary of combating error. To quote the scientist Gregory Cochran, "Must I do all the thinking around here?"
Hello John,
I take it you've not read Ann Coulter's book, "Treason"?
If not, you may find pages 108-111 and 115 interesting.
- pupista (a big fan)
The GOP will be dead only if it continues to be identified with anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage factions. In addition to the big spending policies of Bush et al, social issues are where the GOP has lost its footing: For instance, Republicans proclaim that they are for "small government" and getting government OUT of our lives, but then they want government to outlaw abortion and gay marriage. This is inconsistent and, at least to members of my age cohort, a major obstacle.
I crave a party that is "socially liberal" (meaning that government TRULY stays out of people's lives), fiscally conservative, Constitutionally adherent, and hawkish (speak softly, implement diplomacy, but make sure we carry a big stick). I have not had a candidate to vote for in many years.
Kenneth, I understand your points about demographics. Sure, if the Democrats continue to enable illegals and convicts to vote and vote multiple times, it will help them. I hate identity politics with a passion. When the census comes out, I check EVERY box on the self identification section by race/ethnicity/origin. I'm an American. I am multi-ethnic. Try and pigeon-hole that. My argument is simply that the economy impacts everyone and as we saw in the last election, people voted for "change" without knowing or caring what it was - they just wanted something different than what they had been living with for eight years. It's like my kids when they were small and you'd ask them for input on planning dinner and they'd say - "I don't want that." to several suggestions, only objecting, never proposing. The electorate is childish and will reject Obama when he fails to make life easy. Besides, after talking to enough voters, I think we need a baseline set of requirements before someone can vote - perhaps that they must actually pay income taxes, own or rent property, and pass a current events literacy test. The biggest problem is finding someone to administer the tests without skewing them and disenfranchising the legitimate voters who are excluded. I hate the idea that just because you breathe you are entitled to vote without putting any skin in the game.
John ,
Colin Powell voted and campaigned for Obama despite one of the most moderate members of the GOP wss the standard-bearer .
If the future of the Republican Party is to become Democrat-lite then it might as well be consigned to the dustbin of history.
ps. Love it that WABC airs all 6 hours of the show Sundays.
Only a regular listener of Rush Limbaugh's program can understand the disconnect between his message about what conservatism stands for and how the media presents it.
If "they" so desired, they could edit John Batchelor's radio program and make John seem clownish and rascist by cherry picking 10 seconds out of a 3 hour radio show.
All they need to do is pick out a segment where John is quoting someone else who has said something objectionable. Run that for a 24 hour news cycle on every channel, then mention that JB is friendly with John Bolton, the Hoover Institution, etc. and JB's reputation will be firmly 'tarnished' in the public arena as just another 'Republican' entertainer.
I'll go back to what I suggested before- Republicans! BE QUIET!!!
Go into the back rooms and don't air the discordant melodies. It hurts peoples ears.
Work on this symphony in solitude. There's no great need for a virtuoso right now and Rush sure can't carry a tune!
Shhh!
I have no intention of discussing the rights and wrongs of abortion, in part because I am every bit as conflicted on this as the majority of Americans are, but mostly because I am going to be up all night finishing a freelance article. First a full belly, slippery old Brecht teaches us, then morality.
But remember that Roe V. Wade simply took away the power of the fifty States to decide for themselves how best to deal with such a contentious matter. Those excitable, bug-eyed libertarians who share poor, crazy Ayn Rand's taste for amphetamines might claim that the forcible extension of this “right” constitutes the inevitable march of freedom, but this is sheerest twaddle. Washington cannot make others be free against their will, any more than the Pentagon can build a satellite-guided bomb with an explosive charge so powerful that it will induce the Iraqis or the Pashtuns to love the American democracy that is shredding the limbs of their children.
As for your notion of a government that otherwise stays out of our lives but is “hawkish" (I take that to mean a regime with few qualms about killing lots of wretched foreigners, because after all, they just might conceivably be capable of learning enough to build something that maybe could be used to defend themselves someday from an eventual attack by freedom-loving Americans), that too collapses under the weight of self-contradiction.
“War is the health of the state,” and all that. Before the Great War any American could travel oversea without a passport, as long as he had the price of a ticket. The wage controls of the Second World War led to back-door raises of industrial workers that took the form of government-sanctioned employer-sponsored health insurance that in turn set in motion the third-party-payer health-care crisis that will soon to be used as a pretext to impose on us socialized medicine. Thanks to the Cold War history professors had to sign loyalty others to be granted the right to teach us how free we all are. And so on and so forth, right down to our own degenerate time, when, thanks to the Global War on the Emotion Called Terror we emasculated Americans must take our shoes off at the airport and then get screamed at because we carelessly packed the wrong-sized shampoo while our sisters and wives and daughters get felt up by some fat, grinning sonofabitch with a TSA badge.
The above was a reply to JR.
Well said pulp- For some reason, Independents are demonized by both parties, yet, most people identify with independent thinking and are insulted if someone insinuates that they aren't.
If anyone with a public practice and voice tells me that I have to believe the way that they say I must believe, I know how I react. I reserve my judgment for my own deliberations.
Can I say that most people, if pressed to answer, would be the same?
The two party system springs from antiquity and is driven with unfathomable amounts of money which sustains the self interested status quo. Truth is, the parties are not much different than cults. They disdain the Independents and maybe call them "cop outs", all the while, courting them for money and votes because it is known they have to have them to win. This alone is enough to justify the existence of a third party.
A sole party rule is called what? Dictatorship? Two party dominance is referred to as "Democracy?"
Remember the $100Million run for a certain New York Senate seat? And not too very long ago, there was this election where total contributions approached $1Billion.
I heard there was currently a big demand for workers in the fields and orchards.
Peggy Noonan wrote a column on opinionjournal.com, May 1, "'Shrink To Win' Isn't Much Of A Strategy," extolling the virtues of the Big Tent.
She said that the GOP needs to establish what it's core or essential beliefs are -- these are the tent poles. Then let everyone in the tent who desires. The Big Tent.
This is very reasonable advice. Two problems:
First, the GOP already has a platform. Don't we already have our essential issues? Maybe we should go back to Newt's contract with America. There are still a few things left unfulfilled there. *cough* term limits *cough*
Second, we need to be careful about people in the tent who are not happy to coexist inside the tent -- they are termites chewing on the tent poles! This is why so many cheered when Arlen Specter mad it official and left the party. (As if he was ever more than a termite.)
With regard to Limbaugh, in my opinion he expresses those central tent pole issues more consistently than anybody else. Many people, even many Republicans, do not like his style, or tone, or humor. I won't argue about issues of taste. But though "shrink to win" is not a strategy, neither is a party of opportunists whose only core belief is getting reelected.
Finally, to the "realists" who think the party must change to accommodate changing demographics, I say that the proper response to an increase in non-conservative ideas is to adopt better methods of persuasion. Perhaps the coming depression will be an aid to persuasion. I certainly hope so. Frankly, I un-registered as a Republican when Bush started agitating for amnesty for illegals. I have nothing against immigration or immigrants. I applaud those who come here through legal channels and become contributing members of society, for temporary work or with a view to becoming citizens. But a GOP president who wants to reward lawlessness and grow government has turned the party into something I don't recognize. I am opting out until I see a candidate worth supporting, or until the party as a whole can get its act together and start offering solutions, instead of offering the "middle path" of socialism lite + moral relativism.
>I applaud those who come here through legal channels and become contributing members of society, for temporary work or with a view to becoming citizens.
Amen. Let all of us, left-winger and extreme left-winger alike, give thanks for the far-sighted and expansive view of citizenship and immigration that has made it possible for such fine, upstanding individuals as Barack Hussein Obama and Sonia Sotomayor to aid in the radical transformation of America society; and which will also permit the arrival of still more foreigners to these shores by the tens and hundreds of millions. After all, everyone on this world of six-and-a-half billion souls has a right to enjoy our nation’s bounty, which is without limit, as any fool surely recognizes. What could possibly go wrong?
People in this country have learned a great deal from Rush. He calls out on how biased and unfair the mainstream media is. Rush pushes the buttons, he goes after the democrats and the filth in the mainstream media that continues to move their agenda forward. I was very sad to see you go after Limbaugh in the fashion that you did. Limbaugh exploits the media for what they are. (bag men for the democrats). He also explains the path (very well) the dems are leading us down - something the mainstream media doesn't dare do. JB I understand that your show has great guests, thinkers and policy type strategists. It is a very stimulating program. It's your guests that aren't getting the ink that Limbaugh gets. Being polite and disagreeing with this administration gets you no ink, video or lasting airtime to make a real impression on the American voters. JB you have to stand in the same hot lunch line with the rest of the media. Rush gets to eat wherever he wants.
Rush is exposing our president everyday as a false prophet. The sensitive politicos are having a hard time accepting that. So what! Too bad!! The agenda they are jamming down the throats of the American public is deplorable. JB remember this, most of the people you interview will not better our society unless their is an administration that looks their way. That is when they become difference makers. Rush who is 24/7 is trying to make that happen too.
One question maybe someone can answer. who advised Papa Bush not to go into Baghdad after Saddam( gulf-storm) ? Would Iran be at the attainable nuclear position their in today if we got Hussien the first time? Would the Druse and Christians be in better situation in Lebanon?
Not Scrowcroft but
Colin Powell maybe?
Spencer> Nice to seeing you come around and see the Game, American politics, as it really is. My hat is off to you.
I don't know anything about American Politik or the Game as it really is and I don't pretend to, either. Jus tobserve
Zero, zilch, Nada
Spencer>I don't know anything about American Politik or the Game as it really is and I don't pretend to, either. Jus tobserve
It never hurts too research into it some more. However, your observations are correct from my perspectiive.
A timely article in today's Christian Science Monitor. Herewith an excerpt:
>The US population totaled 281 million in 2000. About 35 million, or 12.5 percent, were Latino. The Census Bureau projects that our population will reach 439 million in 2050, a 56 percent increase over the 2000 census. The Hispanic population in 2050 is projected at 133 million – 30 percent of the total and almost quadruple the 2000 level.
And if present numbers hold, sixty or seventy percent of the ones who are registered will vote Democratic each and every time.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0528/p09s01-coop.html
tes.finance4free.com/
Self-serving RINO Powell, an arm-chair general, is a racist, but Limbaugh is 'delusional?'
What crowd do you hang with, John?
Accepting, even as Christ Himself suggested, that salvation (immortality) is not only quite probable, but entirely unavoidable, puts us in the unenviable position of Jorge Luis Borges' "(The) Immortal"(s) who are said to exist largely within the sordid labyrinths of pure thought where infinite time and possibility render any given circumstance impossible not to be; where "no one is anyone; one single immortal man is all men... god(s)... hero(s)... philosopher(s)... demon(s)... world; which is a tedious way of saying that I do not exist."1
Despite its endless appeal in the temporal world, immortality is a position so desperately untenable, even God Himself seems loath to endure it; and so, the story goes, He sent His only son (for what?) to die; or, at least to give the appearance of such. As Borges writes three paragraphs later, "Death (or its allusion) makes men precious and pathetic. They are moving because of their phantom condition; every act they execute may be their last... Everything among mortals has the value of the irretrievable and the perilous."
As John Batchelor himself has often brilliantly illustrated, the Republican Party is dying. There are of course those who seek to keep it alive, each for their own (often nostalgic) reasons; but word out on the street has it that extraordinary life-saving measures will no longer suffice. There continues to be some justification for keeping the brand alive, however. Third parties have seldom fared well in American politics. Colin Powell, ‘moderate’ Republican, continues to plead his case, saying that the only way to expand the Republican tent is to become more like Democrats. Rush Limbaugh, along with the other radio talk firebrands, promotes just the opposite. He is banking on the belief that when the American voters are given a clear alternative, they will vote Republican. He further stipulates that the Democrat brand is seriously flawed, which Democrats have accepted as a declaration of war.
No doubt, Democrats appear to be winning at the moment. These are difficult times, however. The public is in no mood for partisan political squabbling. It is widely accepted that the person who can end the bickering will be king. Policy never enters into this two-dimensional ‘solution’. Obama was elected solely for his potential to end the rancor while his policy positions went largely unchallenged.
Now policy differences are once again beginning to surface. In order to maintain the ‘no-squabbling’ fiction, there is only one way to go: go with the winner. This is the policy Colin Powell has adopted. Obama too seems to be following a similar track when dealing internationally. He obviously thinks Marxists and dictators are winning as he appears to have decided to play on their team. Limbaugh, on the other hand, offers an untested (since Reagan) alternative which is making Democrats and Republican moderates nervous. Many have settled into comfortably lucrative public careers; they have no stomach for confrontation. They have no taste for enduring the obligatory flogging in the public square with the (partisan) press presiding.
Whenever a politician speaks and someone responds, and then the first one speaks again in response to the response, you can bet the farm a strategy is underway. Colin Powell, reacting to Limbaugh’s criticism signals that Democrats are drawing a bead on the Republican Party. The plan is to topple it from within; to hollow it out until the walls collapse. The name will stay to give the illusion of a multi-party system, but the fangs and claws will have been extracted and replaced with rubber (yes) stamps. It’s meant to perpetuate the fiction of two separate parties working together in sublime harmony for the good of the nation, world, solar system, universe…
The media narrative runs something like this: Obama has been chosen almost by divine decree to accomplish this and more. A king’s motives are never questioned. As such, whether we realize it or not, we have freely chosen to scrap democracy in favor of clearly antiquated feudal governance. Limbaugh and others who are screaming bloody murder, have been assigned the role of court jester. The king will decide whether they’ll live or die.
But, as we have seen, nothing ever dies. Limbaugh will continue in his various avatars; the Dems will stumble on the very notion they are banking on to save them: being too big to fail; and all will continue as before. It’d be the illusion of death that would give us the surge. The caution for Democrats is to closely watch the dying. It is they who are the most dangerous – for they have nothing to lose.
----------------------------------------------------------
1 Taken from the short story, "The Immortal", chapter IV, by Jorge Luis Borges. LABYRINTHS: Selected Stories and Other Writings, copyright 1962 by New Directions Publishing Corp., pg. 114-5
Please recall that Rush has built a huge radio audience on the ability to do 2 things: 1) entertain; and 2) appear to be consistent in his position while changing his position when the facts change (ie. opposing McCain during the primary then supporting him during the general).
As to 1, either he is entertaining or he isn't. Apparently 20 million people a week find him exactly that.
As to 2, he long ago announced his wish to see our Boy (not boy in the racist sense, but boy in the still a child sense) President fail at his quest to turn our country into a faint shadow of what it once was. I predict Rush will be consistent in this pursuit for the next 4 years, and will reap ratings gold as a result (amusingly, MSNBC, the Democrat Party house TV network, seems to think he is ratings gold too, as they spend the entire day gasping in mock horror at things Rush has said in the last 24 hours).
At the same time, Rush will continue what I believe is a genuine effort to help recreate the Republican Party. And as someone who spent 10+ years as an active Republican in Michigan, I am here to tell you that the seeds of today's party failure were sown 20 years ago. The struggle between the principled conservatives and the moderates (what do they really stand for besides trying to win?) to control the Republican party has been lost by the principled conservatives. And now the moderates are lost in the wilderness. Colin Powell might be black, but he isn't rock star enough to compete with Barack Obama. Dick Cheney, a principled conservative, could lead us back, but he's earned his retirement after 8 years of yeoman work on national defense. Another principled conservative (not Michael Steele, unfortunately, who is a good man but who melts too easily in the klieg lights) will have to emerge to take the party forward. It won't be Rush because he doesn't want to take the pay cut.
But to the point: Sotomayor IS a reverse racist. Even if she isn't, she's a judicial activist who has admitted on tape that she legislates outcomes from the bench rather than judging cases on their merits. See Ricci v. DeStefano. She got her head handed to her by a Clinton appointee upon appeal.
Her confirmation will be the turning point, the day when our fine country begins its march into darkness. The government of the United States will become an inward looking ever larger transfer payments pump, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor while bad men around the world fill the vacuum created by Obama's undoing of what Reagan worked so hard to build and Bush 43 tried but failed to maintain.
And I'm now a registered Libertarian. I have more in common with them than with the current disaster called the Republican Party.
RUSH LIMBAUGH, LIKE HOWARD STERN, THRIVES ON CONTROVERSY
RL is making news, getting attention and boosting his radio show's audience. In turn, his advertisers will pay more money to get his increasingly larger audience. His genius is in self promotion. This doesn't make him a spokesman for anything but himself. He doesn't even have to believe in what he's saying. John's reference to McCarthy hits the nail on the head.
When Benjamin Franklin moved to Philly to start Poor Richard's Almanac he also needed to promote himself. So he predicted that his main competitor would die on a date certain. This started BF's career and made a fool of his rival -- who also, through horoscopes, predicted events. No one will ever outdo Franklin.
The serious challenge for anyone today: Who can start a legitimate third party?
Rush is funny and presents a different point of view. I appreciate a diversity of opinion.
This may or may not follow from JB's and PK's comments. Frankly I sometimes have some problem even following what the two of you say. You speak in some sort of veiled semi-coded language. Over my humble head I suppose.
Powell is an interesting study. I have no idea what the guy stands for. He says he's a moderate Rep. OK? what does HE mean by Republican? By moderate? open up the tent to whom? be specific! Latino's? black's? gays? journalists? who does he have in mind that the party has rejected? and, does this mean the party would adapt its ideology to lure them in and in the process become the Democrat party? HOw is that improving the party?
I'd say he is without ideology or maybe even without idea. Just go along to get along. blend in. be the watercooler (allusion to the old Xerox commercial), have it both ways, be able to side with any side, don't offend, recoil at conflict and disagreement, be a soft uncle kind of guy.
I want my leaders and politicians to believe something strongly; to push back at ideas that conflict; push strongly for what one thinks is the "righter" way. I can't stand BO but at least he does this to an extent.
There's no way to build a party around mealy mouths who just want to fit in. Give me a target to shoot at or embrace. Powell is just cotton balls flowing from a pie hole.
I think by "moderate" these guys are either saying-- 1.) let's be a bit compromising on principle (whatever principle, it goes for the moderate Leftist as well) in order to cooperate with the "other side" and achieve something more than nasty rhetorical fist-a-cuffs. Or else it means, 2.) let's distance ourselves from the Messianic Judeo-Christian sect of the right wing, who aren't doing anything for our public image. Cynically, it might also be 3.) acknowledging fear of the Left's ability to assasinate characters who disagree with them, and so such a placating position is an attempt at public cover, assuming a partisan position while behind the scenes toiling at their real work.
For what it's worth, I would call myself a Classical Liberal of the Hayek/Von Mises school and have absolutely zero interest in the religious/fundamentalist aspects of the Republican Party (or any party), and that largely keeps people like me away from active affiliation. As much as I loathe the Left's agenda, it doesn't make me immediately fall in with the Right. I also see the Republicans as shamefully corrupt (just like the Democrats) and often betraying their own stated principles, so I'm not gonna carry a flag for them. I don't see myself as an "independent", since I have principles and don't see the Repubs and Demos as the only 2 options. If I can be bothered to discuss politics in mixed company at all (usually a minefield of insults and boring "Bush did it" jabs, not worth the effort), I say I'm a "libertarian". I understand we live in a Constitutional Republic, I fully support the Bill Of Rights and States' rights, I love this country and I am in every instance distrustful of-- and opposed to--big government, and so my position is often seen as right wing. But it's too tiresome to discuss this stuff in casual company, since so few people take the time to learn anything-- including how to have an honest, respectful disagreement, happy instead to jerk their knees at this and that.
Rush lost me years ago on that "magic negro" type humor. It must play well in his circle but it's embarrassing to a man who lives with a beautiful mixed race woman, as I do. He and Hannity are good on certain issues (anything involving the Constitution or "original intent" for the Supremes, anti-Communism/Socialism), but that's about it for me.
Anyway, we're probably on the verge of a big regional flare-up someplace in the Middle East or Asia, so all this is just keeping time until something big and bad happens. God forbid.
JimJinNJ - I want my leaders and politicians to believe something strongly; to push back at ideas that conflict; push strongly for what one thinks is the "righter" way.
You're right; that's exactly what we've got. And we don't like it; do we? From now on it's Obama's way or no way. And we all know how East Germany turned out. Rush knows what he stands for; he's been consistent. He's explained his positions in detail. I can agree with most of what he says. - There! Kiss of death! I've said it!
Just as Republican dominance radicalized the Democrat Party to a nutroots bent and nomination of the most liberal Senator to run for the Presidency, we shall see the mirror image occur next. And it is being done with prodding from the Obama/Rahm/Carville corner as they elevate Limbaugh, long named as the "extreme right". But guess what, Obama/Reid/Pelosi are sowing the seeds for their own Gotterdamerung. The more that people pay attention to the entertaining Limbaugh while their own standard of living fails, the more appealing his message becomes. Remember Reagan's question in 1980 - "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" In October 2012, the answer for all but the political class and the governing elite will be a resounding "NO!". Limbaugh won't be the leader, he is too flawed as a candidate. A relative no name must arise from the Right and unapologetically preach the economic and national security positions that can be supported by the Rush, Cheney, and Ron Paul "extremists". This is not unlike what Reagan did - but I think this time it may be more urgent, more shrill, and more polarizing.
In my youth, I was what I would describe as a Kennedy Democrat. That party left me. Abandoned me to emphasize the hippie left and me first hedonists of the Boomer generation. As a front end Gen-X'er, I resent what the Boomers have done to my country and the generations that follow them. They were given a great gift of peace and prosperity by their parents and they have squandered it on adolescent fantasies. It is perhaps too harsh, but I won't be disappointed to hear that they will all fade faster as the result of their pill popping faux fountain of life lifestyle so that Generations X, Y & Z can return the nation to austerity and glory. The flirtation with Signor HopeAndChange as a youthful indiscretion by Gen Y/Z that they will never forget. This country is setting up for a very hard right turn, harder than 1980.
I am to believe that Powell, who endorsed and voted for Obama, and Ridge, whose voting record was somewhere to the left of Arlen Spectre are the future of the Republican party? If I must throw my lot in with someone, i'll take my chances with the Limbaugh/Cheney wing.
It has been said that effective politicians dont move to the center, they move the center to them.
"This country is setting up for a very hard right turn, harder than 1980."
No.
Like virtually everybody who posts on this website, you're paying no attention to how radically the demographics of America have changed since 1980 (thanks, ironically, to the GOP's Open Borders policy). Note that McCain carried the same slices of the demographic pie that Reagan did, and by roughly the same percentages, yet he still lost by a fairly big margin.
You're paying no attention to how radically the demographics of America have changed since 1980
I am aware of the Demographics. Yes, Obama won the poor, black, young, Jewish, and urban votes. He faced a weak, mealy centrist opponent. Many people who did not want Obama to win stayed home, because McCain was uninspiring. Among the other Demographics, it was close enough with the advantage going to the challenger after eight years of Bush fatigue. Circumstances will be different in 2012. How many young people do you know that say, "we voted for change and we just got more of the same - I don't know why I bothered voting."
In the end Carville was right - "it's the economy, stupid." Check at the bottom of the graph - the single most important issue was the economy. It was 6X more important than the next tier of issues (Iraq, Health Care, and Terrorism). For everyone who's first vote was for Obama, this is a right-eous lesson. No doubt, the Dems will try to blame it all on Bush, but by the end of this year no one will be listening to that. After all, the Dems promised us that the $2,000,000,000,000 in stimulus and bailouts would fix things. It won't. In fact, today the bond market vigilantes are drawing a bright line in the sand for Ben & Tim.
Now, we know that the President, in normal times doesn't control the economy. We also know that the President doesn't control fiscal policy, that's the preserve of the Congress. But how many times have we heard blame/credit for an up/down economy directed at Nixon/Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush41/Clinton/Bush43? Now it's O's turn and there is no escape from Ragnarok. The long end of the yield curve is rising, that will bring up mortgage rates, that will increase defaults, that will stress banks, that will freeze credit again, that will undermine equities, that will spook management, who will lay people off, who will not pay their mortgages and credit cards and car loans, further stressing the banks, etc. You get the picture. It's the economy and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
During PG I, while working at the lab, we listened to various radio broadcasts to keep up with the "shock and awe" effort against those nasty Elite Republican Guards and this is when I heard RL for the first time and talk radio in general. My impression of RL was that he was a plain talker with a crisp, contagious manner, a vehement patriot, and, of course, an egotistical self promoter.
At the time, what I thought was clarity coming over the waves was made real one day when a caller made it through after waiting for however long and told RL that he was in Montana or Wyoming somewhere, down at his barn cleaning the stalls. He said that he didn't possess a silver tongue or a mastery of the language like Rush did and he really didn't have anything to say other than just wanting to let RL know that he and him did have one thing in common though and it involved a certain activity with a shovel. He may have said that they both are real good at what they do, too. Anyway, RL laughed, as he still does today (Hahhaha, trailing off), and told the man that he had made a good point and probably sent him a book or something, I'm not sure.
I don't listen to him and haven't for a long time, but, I do remember that caller back then and ever since have always taken RL to be a plain talker with crisp manner, a vehement patriot, and, of course, an egotistical self promoter... "Hehehehe"
JB, I know from your previous articles that you do not listen to talk radio. I suggest you start, especially before deciding to blast Rush Limbaugh based on what Democrats are saying about him.
Rush called Sotomayor a racist because that is what she is--BASED ON HER OWN WORDS. She stated that she would be a better judge than a white man, because of her unique background as an Hispanic. That is not what being a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be about--they are supposed to interpret the law and the Constitution. Clearly, that is not what Obama wants the Supreme Court to do, and that is not what Sotomayor intends to do if confirmed. It is also a racist statement. It is about time some Republican pointed this out.
I for one am sick of Rino Republicans who just roll over and accept whatever Obama wants, whether it is nationalizing the banks, nationizing the auto companies, or packing the court with liberal judicial activists. Rush is merely pointing out what the Republican leadership ought to be pointing out--if they had any leadership. It is obvious that Colin Powell is not really a Republican, since he consistently votes for Democrats for President, including Obama. If the leadership had any guts, they would show him the door, the way the Dems did to Lieberman. But then, if they had any guts, they wouldn't be the party out of power right now.
I guarantee you JB that if you listened to Rush for a couple of weeks, you would find him to be a brilliant man, rather than the Joe McCarthy clone the liberal Democrats are painting him as.
"Circumstances will be different in 2012. "
Indeed they will. Hispanics will then comprise an even higher percentage of the American electorate than was the case in 2008. Even if all immigration, legal and illegal, stopped tomorrow, birth rate differentials will see to this. And for whatever reason, Hispanic voters usually pull the Democratic lever, as McAmnesty--who now refers to them as "you people"--learned the hard way. Can the same GOP that has been utterly unsucessful at wooing more than a tenth of black voters ever reasonably expect to win anywhere close to half of Hispanic voters? If the past is any guide to the future, then the answer must be no.
My fundamental point, which I must restate, since you missed it before, is that McCain won the same demographics in more or less the same proportions that Reagan did in the Eighties. That was enough to give Reagan the White House, but not McCain. It is unlikely bordering on inconceivable that any Republican candidate will ever do as well as Reagan did.
The GOP is indeed dead. Demography is destiny.
The Irish and many off the boat Catholics voted Democratic for generations. then the radical left took over the party and told Catholics their values were not welcome. Hispanics will vote Republican, unlike other people of Color they do not have the same loyalty to the Democratic party, nor do they share their values.
Democrats have abortions, Republicans have Babies.
Sapientia
I note that whenever Rush is mentioned, it generates a lot of comment both for and against. Any non-Obama Cool-Aid drinker who wants to keep Rush locked up in the attic, like some crazy aunt or uncle, is missing the point. Knepper is right. Listen for a couple of weeks and shed your media-inspired prejudice. Consider how many 'crazy' uncles and aunts the Dems have running around. They're consistently hyped up as 'learned', 'respected', 'visionary' and whatever else. Several of them have been awarded Nobel prizes and honorary college degrees - all of it utter garbage. One has even been elected POTUS. Soon, we'll have one sitting on the highest court in the land. But none of this is scary to anybody - only Rush is scary! Huh?
The divide in this country is between conservative and liberal. The divide in the Republican Party is between conservative and liberal. The divide in the Democrat party is between liberal and liberal. Do the math! I'm a conservative. As long as we keep throwing people overboard, we'll never bring this country back to sanity. Don't ever expect to convince the (Goebbles) press. Just convince the people. Rush is doing just exactly that. And I, for one , am not ashamed to say it.
While I love your show, I have to disagree with you on this. I do find this woman to be a) egotistical; b) racist; c) partial rather than impartial and unsuitable to be a Supreme Court Justice.
She is not special because she happens to be hispanic and she has no right to a Supreme Court seat (nor does anyone else). She has no right to MAKE POLICY as she claims, which shows serious ignorance of, or total disrespect for her place in the American Constitutional order.
And having worked more than a dozen years among her ethnic group, the problems with that group are not based on anyone else's actions but their own---egotism, pride without accomplishments, high rates of illegitimacy and disrespect for education and hard work. Instead of stealing from the hard working and making excuses and blaming others, how about it if she would tell her latinas to stop having illegitmate children, read a book get an education, work hard and marry if you want to have children.
It's offensive for her to say she can make better decisions than a white man--if it were stated the other way around the man's career would be destroyed. She doesn't get a pass--well she does from liberals, but she shouldn't. A good number of her cases are overruled by the Supreme Court, so she isn't all that great a judge, is she?
Justice is supposed to be blind, not looking at the color or gender of the litigants, but the principles of the law. Perhaps she should start reading teh Constitution and Justice Story's commentaries. I would find her comments offensive whatever background they came from.
How about she think of herself as an AMERICAN and be THANKFUL for the fact that she got a great education all paid for by American taxpayers. I'm glad she (like Clarence Thomas) got out of poverty (but then, with all her need paid for by taxpayers like me, was she really poor? Clarence Thomas didn't even have shoes until he was eight years old and worked even as a child--he was poor. She was not. And by the way, why are we all slaves to the so-called poor and idolize them when our so called ppor havce more than my parents or grandparents ever had and in some ways than I have. About about some respect for those who work and pay the bills? How about telling the so called poor to pay attention in school, keep your legs closed and not have illegitimate children, get a job, learn some manners and get married if you want to have kids--then you won't be poor.
I've taught over ten years in the Bronx and there are many many excellent teachers there. The problem is we have (and these are majority hispanic) kids who come to school simply to talk talk talk talk talk ALL Day about gangs and sex and have no interest in learning anything. They could, with a little effort, truly quailify for a good college, but htey think they are supposed to get passed simply for showing up even if they do absolutely no work. They could get into colleges with lower grades andz SAT scores than white or asian students and get more scholarship money---but don't do the minimum and then claim they're discrminated against, which is not true. It's lack of effort. This entitlement mentality drags down the education of kids who do want to learn.
Every ethnic group had it tough at the beginning--and everything was not published in Italian or Polish or Chinese. There were no ESL or bilingual classes, but the behavior was better and the achievement levels higher. This woman has an atttitude inappropriate and offensive.
I believe it is what will be seen as the rise of the Independents.
What is the (oh, I hate to use the word) "worldview" of those who participate in democracy? This may explain the Obama simplicity rather than demographics or race.
Nothing new in campaign rhetoric and strategy. "Change" and "Yes, we can" are old hat from deep within the 20th Century.
What has either party done to evoke their chosen mantras, whatever they are?
Witness the rise of the Independent... it's coming. To me, this is what Powell is representing.
However, all of this distracts from the tasks at hand... for instance:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/25/untold.stories.damon.iraq/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Also, both parties rate up there with going to ChuckE Cheeses for a birthday party. You get a dummy programmed to twist and turn obnoxiously, rapping to elementary themes designed to entertain children; you get some tokens for games that pay off like a casino (for $20 you end up with choosing between a squishy ball or a kewl sporty keychain); don’t forget the big screens with fairy tale stories that your kids can participate in if not too shy to feign being a star in front of the crowd; and a crummy, unhealthy feed from the trough... all for way too much dinero, too. Ahh, but, the Memories!
Take a minute and read the story linked above for a dose of reality!
>The Irish and many off the boat Catholics voted Democratic for generations. then the radical left took over the party and told Catholics their values were not welcome.
So? Obama still carried the Catholic vote in last year's presidential election by a margin of nine points, 54 to 45 percent.
>Hispanics will vote Republican, unlike other people of Color they do not have the same loyalty to the Democratic Party
Exit polls weren’t as good nine years ago as they are today, but somewhere between 31% and 38% of Hispanic voters pulled the lever for Bush back in 2000, depending on whose numbers you believe. Bush managed to boost that to 40%--not the 44% that Rove falsely claimed for him last year in the Wall Street Journal— in 2004, mostly likely due to the catastrophic housing bubble in the Sand States that he helped engineer as a keystone of his campaign strategy. And John (“You people”) McCain got 32% of the Hispanic vote in 2008.
In a remarkable feat of miniaturization, you have manged to squeeze four other basic mistakes into your brief post, but I grow weary of combating error. To quote the scientist Gregory Cochran, "Must I do all the thinking around here?"
Hello John,
I take it you've not read Ann Coulter's book, "Treason"?
If not, you may find pages 108-111 and 115 interesting.
- pupista (a big fan)
The GOP will be dead only if it continues to be identified with anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage factions. In addition to the big spending policies of Bush et al, social issues are where the GOP has lost its footing: For instance, Republicans proclaim that they are for "small government" and getting government OUT of our lives, but then they want government to outlaw abortion and gay marriage. This is inconsistent and, at least to members of my age cohort, a major obstacle.
I crave a party that is "socially liberal" (meaning that government TRULY stays out of people's lives), fiscally conservative, Constitutionally adherent, and hawkish (speak softly, implement diplomacy, but make sure we carry a big stick). I have not had a candidate to vote for in many years.
Kenneth, I understand your points about demographics. Sure, if the Democrats continue to enable illegals and convicts to vote and vote multiple times, it will help them. I hate identity politics with a passion. When the census comes out, I check EVERY box on the self identification section by race/ethnicity/origin. I'm an American. I am multi-ethnic. Try and pigeon-hole that. My argument is simply that the economy impacts everyone and as we saw in the last election, people voted for "change" without knowing or caring what it was - they just wanted something different than what they had been living with for eight years. It's like my kids when they were small and you'd ask them for input on planning dinner and they'd say - "I don't want that." to several suggestions, only objecting, never proposing. The electorate is childish and will reject Obama when he fails to make life easy. Besides, after talking to enough voters, I think we need a baseline set of requirements before someone can vote - perhaps that they must actually pay income taxes, own or rent property, and pass a current events literacy test. The biggest problem is finding someone to administer the tests without skewing them and disenfranchising the legitimate voters who are excluded. I hate the idea that just because you breathe you are entitled to vote without putting any skin in the game.
John ,
Colin Powell voted and campaigned for Obama despite one of the most moderate members of the GOP wss the standard-bearer .
If the future of the Republican Party is to become Democrat-lite then it might as well be consigned to the dustbin of history.
ps. Love it that WABC airs all 6 hours of the show Sundays.
Only a regular listener of Rush Limbaugh's program can understand the disconnect between his message about what conservatism stands for and how the media presents it.
If "they" so desired, they could edit John Batchelor's radio program and make John seem clownish and rascist by cherry picking 10 seconds out of a 3 hour radio show.
All they need to do is pick out a segment where John is quoting someone else who has said something objectionable. Run that for a 24 hour news cycle on every channel, then mention that JB is friendly with John Bolton, the Hoover Institution, etc. and JB's reputation will be firmly 'tarnished' in the public arena as just another 'Republican' entertainer.
I'll go back to what I suggested before- Republicans! BE QUIET!!!
Go into the back rooms and don't air the discordant melodies. It hurts peoples ears.
Work on this symphony in solitude. There's no great need for a virtuoso right now and Rush sure can't carry a tune!
Shhh!
I have no intention of discussing the rights and wrongs of abortion, in part because I am every bit as conflicted on this as the majority of Americans are, but mostly because I am going to be up all night finishing a freelance article. First a full belly, slippery old Brecht teaches us, then morality.
But remember that Roe V. Wade simply took away the power of the fifty States to decide for themselves how best to deal with such a contentious matter. Those excitable, bug-eyed libertarians who share poor, crazy Ayn Rand's taste for amphetamines might claim that the forcible extension of this “right” constitutes the inevitable march of freedom, but this is sheerest twaddle. Washington cannot make others be free against their will, any more than the Pentagon can build a satellite-guided bomb with an explosive charge so powerful that it will induce the Iraqis or the Pashtuns to love the American democracy that is shredding the limbs of their children.
As for your notion of a government that otherwise stays out of our lives but is “hawkish" (I take that to mean a regime with few qualms about killing lots of wretched foreigners, because after all, they just might conceivably be capable of learning enough to build something that maybe could be used to defend themselves someday from an eventual attack by freedom-loving Americans), that too collapses under the weight of self-contradiction.
“War is the health of the state,” and all that. Before the Great War any American could travel oversea without a passport, as long as he had the price of a ticket. The wage controls of the Second World War led to back-door raises of industrial workers that took the form of government-sanctioned employer-sponsored health insurance that in turn set in motion the third-party-payer health-care crisis that will soon to be used as a pretext to impose on us socialized medicine. Thanks to the Cold War history professors had to sign loyalty others to be granted the right to teach us how free we all are. And so on and so forth, right down to our own degenerate time, when, thanks to the Global War on the Emotion Called Terror we emasculated Americans must take our shoes off at the airport and then get screamed at because we carelessly packed the wrong-sized shampoo while our sisters and wives and daughters get felt up by some fat, grinning sonofabitch with a TSA badge.
The above was a reply to JR.
Well said pulp- For some reason, Independents are demonized by both parties, yet, most people identify with independent thinking and are insulted if someone insinuates that they aren't.
If anyone with a public practice and voice tells me that I have to believe the way that they say I must believe, I know how I react. I reserve my judgment for my own deliberations.
Can I say that most people, if pressed to answer, would be the same?
The two party system springs from antiquity and is driven with unfathomable amounts of money which sustains the self interested status quo. Truth is, the parties are not much different than cults. They disdain the Independents and maybe call them "cop outs", all the while, courting them for money and votes because it is known they have to have them to win. This alone is enough to justify the existence of a third party.
A sole party rule is called what? Dictatorship? Two party dominance is referred to as "Democracy?"
Remember the $100Million run for a certain New York Senate seat? And not too very long ago, there was this election where total contributions approached $1Billion.
I heard there was currently a big demand for workers in the fields and orchards.
Peggy Noonan wrote a column on opinionjournal.com, May 1, "'Shrink To Win' Isn't Much Of A Strategy," extolling the virtues of the Big Tent.
She said that the GOP needs to establish what it's core or essential beliefs are -- these are the tent poles. Then let everyone in the tent who desires. The Big Tent.
This is very reasonable advice. Two problems:
First, the GOP already has a platform. Don't we already have our essential issues? Maybe we should go back to Newt's contract with America. There are still a few things left unfulfilled there. *cough* term limits *cough*
Second, we need to be careful about people in the tent who are not happy to coexist inside the tent -- they are termites chewing on the tent poles! This is why so many cheered when Arlen Specter mad it official and left the party. (As if he was ever more than a termite.)
With regard to Limbaugh, in my opinion he expresses those central tent pole issues more consistently than anybody else. Many people, even many Republicans, do not like his style, or tone, or humor. I won't argue about issues of taste. But though "shrink to win" is not a strategy, neither is a party of opportunists whose only core belief is getting reelected.
Finally, to the "realists" who think the party must change to accommodate changing demographics, I say that the proper response to an increase in non-conservative ideas is to adopt better methods of persuasion. Perhaps the coming depression will be an aid to persuasion. I certainly hope so. Frankly, I un-registered as a Republican when Bush started agitating for amnesty for illegals. I have nothing against immigration or immigrants. I applaud those who come here through legal channels and become contributing members of society, for temporary work or with a view to becoming citizens. But a GOP president who wants to reward lawlessness and grow government has turned the party into something I don't recognize. I am opting out until I see a candidate worth supporting, or until the party as a whole can get its act together and start offering solutions, instead of offering the "middle path" of socialism lite + moral relativism.
>I applaud those who come here through legal channels and become contributing members of society, for temporary work or with a view to becoming citizens.
Amen. Let all of us, left-winger and extreme left-winger alike, give thanks for the far-sighted and expansive view of citizenship and immigration that has made it possible for such fine, upstanding individuals as Barack Hussein Obama and Sonia Sotomayor to aid in the radical transformation of America society; and which will also permit the arrival of still more foreigners to these shores by the tens and hundreds of millions. After all, everyone on this world of six-and-a-half billion souls has a right to enjoy our nation’s bounty, which is without limit, as any fool surely recognizes. What could possibly go wrong?
People in this country have learned a great deal from Rush. He calls out on how biased and unfair the mainstream media is. Rush pushes the buttons, he goes after the democrats and the filth in the mainstream media that continues to move their agenda forward. I was very sad to see you go after Limbaugh in the fashion that you did. Limbaugh exploits the media for what they are. (bag men for the democrats). He also explains the path (very well) the dems are leading us down - something the mainstream media doesn't dare do. JB I understand that your show has great guests, thinkers and policy type strategists. It is a very stimulating program. It's your guests that aren't getting the ink that Limbaugh gets. Being polite and disagreeing with this administration gets you no ink, video or lasting airtime to make a real impression on the American voters. JB you have to stand in the same hot lunch line with the rest of the media. Rush gets to eat wherever he wants.
Rush is exposing our president everyday as a false prophet. The sensitive politicos are having a hard time accepting that. So what! Too bad!! The agenda they are jamming down the throats of the American public is deplorable. JB remember this, most of the people you interview will not better our society unless their is an administration that looks their way. That is when they become difference makers. Rush who is 24/7 is trying to make that happen too.
One question maybe someone can answer. who advised Papa Bush not to go into Baghdad after Saddam( gulf-storm) ? Would Iran be at the attainable nuclear position their in today if we got Hussien the first time? Would the Druse and Christians be in better situation in Lebanon?
Not Scrowcroft but
Colin Powell maybe?
Spencer> Nice to seeing you come around and see the Game, American politics, as it really is. My hat is off to you.
I don't know anything about American Politik or the Game as it really is and I don't pretend to, either. Jus tobserve
Zero, zilch, Nada
Spencer>I don't know anything about American Politik or the Game as it really is and I don't pretend to, either. Jus tobserve
Zero, zilch, Nada
It never hurts too research into it some more. However, your observations are correct from my perspectiive.
A timely article in today's Christian Science Monitor. Herewith an excerpt:
>The US population totaled 281 million in 2000. About 35 million, or 12.5 percent, were Latino. The Census Bureau projects that our population will reach 439 million in 2050, a 56 percent increase over the 2000 census. The Hispanic population in 2050 is projected at 133 million – 30 percent of the total and almost quadruple the 2000 level.
And if present numbers hold, sixty or seventy percent of the ones who are registered will vote Democratic each and every time.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0528/p09s01-coop.html
tes.finance4free.com/