The important detail in GOP politics just now is that Eric Cantor has directed his message team to broadcast Cantor's knocking Rush Limbaugh. The Limbaugh baiting is not the major message. Cantor is chiefly pointing to the stupid and nonsensical anti-Jewish signage at the Bachmann rally on Thursday 5 -- the name "Rothschilds" was misspelled as "Rothchilds" -- and also to the report that a Tea Party fan used a poster that showed a Dachau victim; but he also comments on a routine Limbaugh vulgarity from as far back as August 6, when Limbaugh compared the Obama administration to Hitler. The spin so far from the Left, chiefly Talking Points Memo, is that Cantor is taking on a bear that will eat him. And that previous attempts by GOP pols to knock Limbaugh have led to the pols apologizing, even rationalizing, as did Michael Steele. Now Cantor goes shopping for a stupid Limbaugh remark that the talker made 3 months ago. Why is Cantor doing this? and why now? There are answers but as of yet it is unclear which answer is suitable . Cantor likely feels stung by the "Rothchild" (sic) signage at a rally where he did make banal and less than brilliant remarks. But what else. Mocking Limbaugh so noisily guarantees that Cantor has now moved into the right-wing No Fly Zone.
Stewart vs. Beck.
Is there a connection between Cantor knocking Limbaugh and Jon Stewart mocking Glenn Beck (above)? Stewart is the dangerous weapon in modern politics, while Beck is a joyous novelty, the Soupy Sales of FNC who cannot be permitted to change his act from day to day. (Beck must be stranger and sillier than yesterday about the Obama administration, that is, White Fang and Black Tooth must appear everyday for a dialogue, or the fans will be disappointed. Cream pies in the face help, too.) So why is Stewart turning his very heavy weaponry on Beck? Why now? Stewart threw a cream pie at Beck on November 4 or so, and on November 6 the White House message team hosted a luncheon for POTUS and the elite journalists of the moment, from David Gergen to Jon Meacham to Josh Marshall and David Brooks and Gail Collins. A luncheon that was off the record and seems without a point, a free-floating influence operation that just so happenened to have come on a dreary Friday of news from the markets and Ft. Hood. The White House is not confident enough to say what it is after. FNC is a guess. Limbaugh is a guess. And talk radio is a guess. Lots of mockery going on in Washington, by both sides in the healthcare/Obama/stimulus debate. Signage that mocks Congress or someone; celebrity pols who mock radio celebrities; TV shows that mock TV shows. More turmoil in train. It may be that it is no longer possible for there to be rapproachment. No prisoners, not climb downs. Limbaugh is WMD. Stewart is a MIRVed Trident. Escalation? Limbaugh launches on the only Jewish member of the Republican caucus? Stewart launches on the only cable show that can do zaniness as news (Stewart does news as zaniness)? Pop the popcorn, nuke winter coming on.
So TV personalities and Congressmen take offense at an average person's misspelled sign? Do I have that right?
Is it because TV personalities and Congressmen think that Tea Parties are "organized" movements? Because if this is the case, the truly don't understand the public's outrage or rage on healthcare and Congress' actions to spend money in general.
Tea parties are organized but not as a movement; it's a flow of average people (if anyone is "average"; perhaps a better word is non-political) who drift in and out of the issue. Some places the backbone (the organizers) are Republicans (but not the party guys, honest; ;they dislike the tea parties as they are many times the source of the tea parties wrath ) and in some places by conservatives. They are all local small businesspeople in our area.....sad that the politicos don't get it.
LET'S TURN THE UNITED STATES INTO, SAY, ITALY.
Then we could have 27 political parties and get nothing done. It would be perpetual gridlock.
And it would be great for Wall Street.
John,
I am a frequent listener of your show and there is no equal. I am a frequent listener of Rush Limbaugh and there is no equal. They are different forms of entertainment and information. And both have flaws. Rush is anything but an intellectual but he has incredible instincts and knows how to zero in on the irony of what the opposition is doing.
For example, Nancy Pelosi called the Tea Party tactics during the Town Hall meetings Nazi like. So Rush goes her one better and describes Obama's tactics as Nazi like. Actually Rush had the better argument as National Socialism was socialism and one of the first things they did was to nationalize health care. They also depended on a business sector of large institutions that was not independent of the government. Does that ring a bell? So Rush in his usual self was making an absurd claim which has a lot to be said for it and he was doing it in direct response to the tactics of the Democrats. The press only plays up Rush's response not the rationale behind it. It is sort of like the hockey player who gets sucker punched and then turns and drops his gloves and then gets 5 minutes for fighting while the other guy skates away.
Also Rush has pro Jewish credentials going back at least 20 years. He was doing pro Israel stuff when I first heard him in 1991 and has been to Israel as the guess of high level government figures.
As a fellow Philadelphian, now in New York, who grew up on the other side of City Line Ave, I go with my family every year to Ocean City. I went to drop off something at the Post Office there last August and there was a heated discussion going on in front of the building by a group that had anti Obama signs on health care with some of the passers by. The protesters with the signs said they were LaRouche Democrats. One foisted some of their literature on me and said that Obama and Pelosi were beholden to George Soros who was secretly backed by the Rothschilds. So I bet the sign in the image above had its source in this thinking. I didn't know the Rothschilds existed any more but Larouche's people had them targeted.
JRC writes: "Also Rush has pro Jewish credentials going back at least 20 years. He was doing pro Israel stuff when I first heard him in 1991 and has been to Israel as the guess of high level government figures."
This is absolutely true. Anyone who is trying to pin anti-Jewish sentiment on Limbaugh is going to end up with egg on his face. Or pie.
Also, it is not a smart idea for anyone to get into a ridicule contest with Limbaugh. He will parody them to death.
JRC seems to have a better handle on this than JB.
The far left "progressive dems" and far right "conservative reps" realize they have too small a constituency to win elections and maintain or gather power. They are alway vying for the support of the mid center left to mid center right constituency. The reality is that some conservative policies and some progressive policies and some centrist policies are best. We have no capable leaders now, only lowly politicians who take the low road. They means to get people so riled up with fear, anger and hatred through lies and distortion that they can't see the forest for the trees. The extreme of this is Facism, Communism and Radical Islam. Though they all seem different their foundation is hatred that blinds people. Our democracy is the best form of government that humantiy has to offer as of yet. The center, meaning the best of all choices is made, must hold. The center must hold now, democracy must win out.
WE DON'T NEED A THIRD PARTY. WE NEED 27 MORE PARTIES.
Liberals don't want to take the name and form a third party. They want to be called Democrats.
Conservatives don't want to take the name and form a third party. They want to be called Republicans. Libertarians seem to be comfortable with their handle, but nobody who's not one knows what it means. I'm beginning to think I want to belong to the Whig party, but it's hard to join something that no longer exists. Multi-culturalism has its benefits and each group that want's to identify solely as that group can have its own party -- even if it's not very multi-cultural or even cultural. Of course, the Multi-cultural party might have its own large constituency. Then there can be 'ultra' parties, such as Ultra-Conservatives, for those who think Conservatives are not conservative enough. Similarly there can be 'uber' parties, if 'ultra' doesn't go far enough. Can you name an Uber-Liberal? I can. There's also the Lefty party, the Righty party, the Progressive party and the Non-Progressive party. The Republicrats or Democrans party could be the party for peace -- of course, it would be better if they just fought it out for their own name.
It's a big country. Why can't we all just form our own party and get along?
Why can't we have all those parties and get along?
We could all get along. We just could never have all those parties. This is because of the entrenched
power that the Democrats/Republicans have. They will do anything to keep their power, anything to keep others off the ballot. (Of course, they're able to keep reformers within the party who disagree with the powers at the top out by the primary process). Then, there's problems with the expense of campaigning and getting funding for new parties. Then, there's inertia because third parties that do exist generally don't do well. Then, there's been no real BIG reason. However, this may change. Whether this turns out to be real change anyone can believe in or a total fantasy remains to be seen.
Lieberman was able to buck the system. But there's no real Independent party. It's, basically, just him. He was able to succeed because he had power to begin with. This is power from the top down. Very unusual. TR tried to create a new party and failed. And he was TR. New parties I would assume should come from the bottom up. But who knows? The next few years -- even few months -- should be very interesting.
The late Samuel Francis famously referred to the Republicans as the Stupid Party and the Democrats as the Evil Party. A true bipartisan, Senator Lieberman manages to be both stupid and evil.
Unitedyd Utopiamo
Where the only means of commerce has become the selling of insurANCES to one another and the constant monitoring for risk in the assessment data base is the main enterprise.
Portability? You betcha! Every 14 seconds
What happens when the cost of insurance exceeds one's pay?
Nevermind forming one party, I first have some reservations as to whether progressive liberals are even the same species as I belong to. They probably wonder the same thing about me. I suggest the name "Australopithecus Communensis" for progressives.
I swear, the Repubs in the debate yesterday were all saying "This bill represents the greatest loss of liberty in the history of the United States" and the Dems were all like, "Yeah, so what's your point?" I do not exaggerate. I don't recall a single Democratic debater saying that the bill did anything to protect people's liberties. There were two who came close: The guy from New Jersey with the italian surname, something like Pellardi (?), and some great big fat black lady who waddled up to the podium and said "If this bill was as bad as the minority members are all saying it is, I'd vote against it myself". Apart from that, they acted as if loss of liberty was a concept that was completely unimportant to them.