Posted by Tina
By now most of our readers are familiar with Saul Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals”. This is a book embraced by unions, teachers associations, politicians, commentators, bloggers, and Democrat support organizations such as NOW, ACORN and the NAACP. This book is the progressive Democrat’s sacred bible for winning elections and defeating the competition. Rule twelve, a method for destroying the reputation or character of an individual or organization by deception and lies, seems to be a favorite:
RULE #12 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
A cloak of moral superiority is always assumed when implementing rule twelve. The attacker feigns concern for minorities, old people, and children while insisting that his target hates or wishes them harm. This posture serves as an heart rending basis for outrageous claims of racism, chauvinism, the starvation or abandonment of old people and children, or a preference for dirty water and air. The lies and deceptions are never subtle. The attack is designed to completely distract from whatever issue or condition brought the target into the public eye. Persuasion in the arena of ideas is completely discarded. There is no real sense of moral courage or restraint; the end justifies whatever means is deemed necessary to gain or retain power.
The ultimate progressive “end” was articulated clearly by candidate Obama when he promised in the final days of election 2008, that if elected he would “fundamentally transform the United States of America”. Progressives have patiently worked to achieve this goal for many decades using rule twelve.
An Ugly Legacy of Character Assassination
One of the most obvious examples of the implementation of rule twelve is an ugly diatribe that should turn the stomach of any fair minded person who is interested in debate on issues and ideas or discovering the competency, experience and suitability of a candidate or appointee. In 1987 Ted Kennedy stood on the floor of the Senate and debased himself and the Senate when he attacked the character of a highly qualified and competent appointee to the Supreme Court, Robert Bork. Prior to this, not a single appointee had ever been subjected to such a vicious and deceptive personal attack:
A few years later in 1991 the feminist group, N.O.W., was the organizational power aligned behind a similar effort to destroy Clarence Thomas’ chances to sit on the Supreme Court. This time the lies were even more personal as Judge Thomas was accused of sexual harassment in events that supposedly occurred years earlier. The woman, Anita Hill, was so offended that she didn’t report the incident at the time and later, when he transferred to the E.E.O.C, she followed him. As reported in National Review on the anniversary of this historic hearing:
Pres. George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court on July 1, 1991. Four days later, the National Organization for Women (NOW) declared war.
“We’re going to bork him,” vowed member Flo Kennedy. “We need to kill him politically.” (emphasis mine)
In the he said/she said circus that followed in Senate hearings there was little room to mount an effective defense. How do you prove innocence about a supposed decades old incident? Headlines of the sordid details articulated by Anita Hill would be sufficient to sully the man’s reputation in the minds of many Americans and others around the world. The “seriousness of the charge”, it was hoped, would be sufficient to “kill him politically”. Clarence Thomas maintained his dignity throughout the ordeal but expressed his frustration and anger by saying the hearings were, “a national disgrace…a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves.”
Ultimately polls suggested that most Americans believed Thomas, many agreed that he had been symbolically lynched, and the Senate narrowly (52 to 48) confirmed his nomination with 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voting in favor of Thomas and 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans voting to reject his nomination.
I could cite many instances through the years where rule 12 has been consciously implemented to smear the reputation of a person or group as a means of winning progressive Democrat victory in the political arena. Time and space being limited I will fast forward to prominent examples of today.
On September 12, 2009 an estimated 1.5 million Americans marched on the capitol in DC to protest big government. Nothing like this had ever happened outside the progressive box. Conservative Americans normally don’t go in for big public displays as a means to effect political change but the many offenses to our freedoms, our savings, and investment culminated in a spontaneous groundswell need to do something. It’s impossible to estimate how many people each person at the rally represented but the number has to be significant. It certainly turned the crank of the progressives who immediately sought ways to marginalize and discredit the movement.
In some of the most incendiary, irrational rhetoric yet from the Congressional Black Caucus, Democratic Rep. Andre Carson (left) of Indiana has said members of the conservative Tea Party want to murder blacks.
The Congressman delivered his remarks at an event the CBC held in Miami on August 22. He later said he stands by them, and tossed in The John Birch Society for good measure.
Carson’s crazy rant resembles others from CBC members such as Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who said tea party members can “go to Hell.”
But they and other CBC members are only reprising what they hear in the media, where smashing the tea party as racist comes from top members of the industry.
Desperate progressives seem compelled to make ridiculous or outrageous claims. One recent example comes from the ex-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi
“In one of the bills before us, 6 million seniors are deprived of meals — homebound seniors are deprived of meals. People ask us to find our common ground, the middle ground. Is middle ground 3 million seniors not receiving meals? I don’t think so. We’ve got to take this conversation from a debate about numbers and dollar figures and finding middle ground there to the higher ground of national values. I don’t think the American people want any one of those 6 million people to lose their meals or the children who are being thrown off of Head Start and the rest of it.”
Notice the tone of moral superiority Pelosi uses to discredit her fellow representatives. Notice how she panders to voters with an emotional appeal that takes precedence over the facts. And speaking of the facts, an article in the Washinton Post challenges Ms Pelosi’s emotionally charged claim as factually challenged:
The first problem with Pelosi’s statistic is that, according to the agency’s budget documents, only about 2.6 million seniors receive such meals. That’s even less than what she decried as the mushy middle ground of compromise.
As the 2012 election season heats up I expect this type of attack to continue. Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman have been targeted in this way. Most recently Kennedy’s Rule #12 legacy of borking opponents has been used against Herman Cain and his supporters:
Herman Cain may or may not win the Republican nomination but he deserves to be heard and considered on the merits of his ideas and the experience and character he would bring to the office.
Most Republicans, Independents, and moderate Democrats deplore this type of politicking, preferring instead to evaluate candidates and ideas on merit. Some have stepped forward to expose the sordid game only to become the target of character assination themselves. The deviousness of this cowardly approach to gain power is difficult to counter.
As we watch events unfold over the next twelve months I invite each of you to notice those who engage in targeted character assassination, lies and deception as a means to win. They are easy to spot because they avoid issues and substance and instead focus on outlandish, often cruel, personal attacks.
We are facing one of the most important elections cycles in our history. The outcome may well decide whether we will continue to function as a republic or succumb to the siren call of social democracy so popular in progressive Europe. America is a unique treasure I hope we will choose to preserve. We can do so first and foremost by rejecting the malicious dirty tricks politics of the progressive left. These tactics only serve as a distraction. We can do so by learning the truth about redistribution policies vs. free market capitalism. We can do so by embracing those principles and ideals that made this country the most prosperous, free nation on earth and electing those who courageously promote and defend those ideals. We need men and women of good character, above all else, in our governments high positions. Without good character no amount of learning or achievement will restore equality, freedom, and opportunity to the good citizens of this country.
This just in:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cain-responds-sex-harassment-allegation
If only Cain had his own State Troopers, he could have these things taken care of. Rush is covering this really well. This story and how it is being covered tells me Cain is greatly feared by the Left.
Toby, this is what they do to candidates that get too much of the media spotlight. They’re a jealous, evil bunch that love to destroy people who are good for America. This is what I hate about politics…there’s no honor in a smear campaign.
If what I am hearing is all they have, this is a pathetic smear job. I predict it will backfire and boost Cain’s numbers. Cain is a sleeper and he is going to beat all comers in the primaries.
Tina, I might find your concern over “character assassination, deception and lies” more convincing if you didn’t constantly support these tactics on your own side.
I don’t have enough information to comment on Bork or Clarence Thomas, but I have criticized some liberals for smearing Sarah Palin. When you pointed out the Daily Kos’ decision to perpetuate the ugly and ridiculous conspiracy theory that Trig Palin was not Palin’s real son, but in fact her grandson, I condemned the Daily Kos. Such behavior is unacceptable and only makes the culprit lose credibility.
But you never condemned the more infamous “birther” conspiracy theory directed at President Barack Obama. Obama revealed legal proof of his birthplace before he was even elected president, but that didn’t stop many people on your side from ignoring this simple fact and claiming that Barack Obama was not a natural born U.S. citizen and was in fact lying about his place of birth. You excused such nonsense, arguing that these people had “valid questions” and “legitimate concerns,” when in fact they had no such thing. Their motives were entirely based on their hatred of the president, to the point where they lied all the time, claiming that Obama had not released a legal birth certificate when in fact he had.
You also supported the “death panels” smear, which made Politifact’s “lie of the year” in 2009. All informed people now know that the “death panels” were a complete lie, and that nothing that can be reasonably described as a “death panel” appears in the health care bill. Yet there has been no apology or correction from those who perpetuated the smear, including Sarah Palin.
You continue to support Rush Limbaugh, a man who makes a living off of smears, lies, and deception. His most egregious recent smear was that our president and military are “wiping out Christians” in Uganda. He has yet to apologize for or correct this disgusting lie. Yet once again, you excused this behavior, and claimed that he was merely “speculating” and “asking questions.” That’s not even a charitable or generous interpretation of what he was doing; it just isn’t true. You know he only said these things because he hates the president so much that he was willing to portray him as anti-Christian for helping dismantle a violent gang of mass murderers and rapists. Limbaugh was too busy feeding this prejudiced and baseless accusation that he couldn’t bother to take two seconds to find out what the LRA actually does before making this snap judgment. In the process he found himself supporting a terrorist organization over our country. You can’t get more un-American then that.
In the past week Limbaugh has also gone after the first lady, who he frequently demeans as “Moochelle Obama,” over a tabloid piece which reported a feud between Mrs. Obama and Paula Deen. The story was false, as Paula Deen has now confirmed, but Limbaugh reported the story as fact in an attempt to once again portray Mrs. Obama as an over-eater. Once again, there has been no apology or correction from Rush since the story was discredited. He never apologizes or admits when he’s wrong. His show is entirely devoted to smearing and lying about his political opponents, and when these lies turn out to be false, he doesn’t care.
If you hate the tactics of character assassination, deception and lies so much, you shouldn’t support people who make their livings engaging in it.
You should move Q’s latest post to this thread, it would serve as a prime example. He managed to crap on old people and vets in the same post. Oh and he got to call Jack something that I am about 99% sure Q has never seen (in real life) free of charge.
Chris: “I might find your concern over “character assassination, deception and lies” more convincing if you didn’t constantly support these tactics on your own side.”
I might take your consideration more seriously if you were accurately describing my position…you are not.
I don’t support the use of specific targeted attacks to ruin the reputation or character of any group or person as a political tactic, particularly when it is orchestrated by elected officials and their support organizations.
I am fairly tolerant (free speech rights) of anyone on either side who engages in typical political speculation, discussion, or even serious disdain when pointed questions arise. I am tolerant of those who are having fun at the expense of the rival party; it’s part of the game. Usually when I write about leftists engaging in these things it’s when the left has mounted a frontal attack. When that happens you bet I fight back…hard.
Generally speaking, that is my personal rule. Yours seems to be different…fine…you do your thing and I’ll do mine.
“…you never condemned the more infamous “birther” conspiracy theory directed at President Barack Obama.”
Your rules made you feel justified in criticizing me but the truth is I never supported this as a conspiracy, I simply said that the questions raised were interesting. I thought that this oddity coupled with the mysteriousness of keeping his college records under wraps and certain other questions about his background, including video posted to You Tube, made the question compelling enough to follow loosley. As you may recall it was you who brought the subject up. If I were such a zealot, as you seem to imply, I would have posted it as a story myself initially and followed it up relentlessly. I did not.
“…when in fact they had no such thing.”
That is your opinion…fine…just don’t project it on me.
“…You also supported the “death panels” smear…”
First of all, you don’t seem to get the difference between a targeted calculated assassination and a valid consideration under discussion or a cynical opinion expressed because it seems possible or having fun at the expense of a rival.
Once again, I think it is a serious problem when a government panel has the power to decide what procedures and remedies will be allowed and which will not. Under government control the citizen has NO CHOICE as they do in the private sector!
It has been shown that the panel in England that this was modeled after has led to earlier deaths of some patients. So the death panel accusation represents a legitimate consideration and difference of opinion about how we should approach healthcare reform.
“…All informed people now know that the ‘death panels’…”
Sorry Chris, that “informed people” is a crasp argument and doesn’t deserve a response.
“You continue to support Rush Limbaugh, a man who makes a living off of smears, lies, and deception.”
More opinion! 1 800 282-2882
“If you hate the tactics of character assassination, deception and lies so much, you shouldn’t support people who make their livings engaging in it.”
The left is extremely hypocritical in bringing up Rush Limbaugh. Rush’s show came about, in part, to become equal time for excessive leftist smears over decades. National Review was not equal time! Some of the smears (character assassination) was extremely egregious as in the Bork and Thomas hearings. Rush’s show also became equal time for the subtle and destructive constant attacks on religion and morality that left political, entertainment, media, pushed over many years. The left “had fun” targeting and laughing at Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy week after week via comedy shows, news shows, and in movies long before the Rush Limbaugh show came about and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. It’s only a problem now that the other side has a voice or two to act as a counter.
Also…the left’s apology and cover up for Bill Clinton’s many abusive incidents with women makes most of those you align with so much worse than my following Rush Limbaugh. As far as I’m concerned what Rush does falls under the ceiling (or should I say floor) that the left constructed and has yet to own much less decide to retire. Unless and until they do…fahgedaboudit!
The more serious charge here is organized political character assassination. The charges raised against Clarence Thomas were given space by Democrats in the Senate!
Find a similar example on the right and we’ll talk.
Tina: “I don’t support the use of specific targeted attacks to ruin the reputation or character of any group or person as a political tactic, particularly when it is orchestrated by elected officials and their support organizations.”
Tina, that describes the “death panel” lie to a tee.
If you leave out the “orchestrated by elected officials” bit, it also accurately describes the birther theory, as well as Limbaugh’s smears that I brought up.
“I am fairly tolerant (free speech rights) of anyone on either side who engages in typical political speculation, discussion, or even serious disdain when pointed questions arise.”
This, on the other hand, doesn’t describe any of the incidents I brought up.
“Generally speaking, that is my personal rule. Yours seems to be different…fine…you do your thing and I’ll do mine.”
No, Tina, I have the same rule you’re describing here. You’re just trying really hard not to see how often this rule is broken by people on your side.
“Your rules made you feel justified in criticizing me but the truth is I never supported this as a conspiracy, I simply said that the questions raised were interesting.”
But that’s bad enough, because the questions were not interesting. They were ignorant. And most of the time they weren’t just “questions,” they were flat out lies. Many Republicans claimed that President Obama had not provided his birth certificate. That was a lie. They claimed that the Certificate of Live Birth provided by the Obama campaign in 2008 was not proof of anything. That too was a lie. The Hawaiian COLB is legally equivalent to a birth certificate. The two terms are often used interchangeably. When you ask for a birth certificate in the state of Hawaii, that is what you get, unless you specifically ask for the long-form. The COLB provides all details necessary to prove citizenship and place of birth according to the State Department. Anyone entertaining the birther claims could have found this out at any time if they were really curious…but their goal was not to find the truth, it was to smear the president out of hatred.
“As you may recall it was you who brought the subject up. If I were such a zealot, as you seem to imply, I would have posted it as a story myself initially and followed it up relentlessly. I did not.”
I’m not implying that you were a zealot on this issue, I’m saying that you don’t have a problem with the tactics of smearing, character assassination, lies and deception as long as they’re directed at your political opponents.
“First of all, you don’t seem to get the difference between a targeted calculated assassination and a valid consideration under discussion or a cynical opinion expressed because it seems possible or having fun at the expense of a rival.”
Once again, it is YOU who doesn’t understand this difference! There was nothing valid about the death panels lie. Nothing. It was one of the most cynical political ploys I have ever seen. It was absolutely a targeted character assassination.
“Once again, I think it is a serious problem when a government panel has the power to decide what procedures and remedies will be allowed and which will not.”
Well, it’s a good thing the health care law doesn’t do anything like this, then! But the fact that you erroneously believe it does shows how pervasive and effective the right-wing smear machine has been.
“Under government control the citizen has NO CHOICE as they do in the private sector!”
Again, you show that you still don’t know much about this health care law that you hate so much. It doesn’t put us all under government control, and in fact it gives many incentives to the private sector. In fact, the idea that the health care bill amounted to a “government takeover of health care” was another of Politifact’s “lies of the year.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/
” Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up “exchanges” where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don’t have it.
The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.”
“It has been shown that the panel in England that this was modeled after…”
There are no panels in the PPACA that were modeled after the British NHS. Who has been telling you such lies?
“So the death panel accusation represents a legitimate consideration and difference of opinion about how we should approach healthcare reform.”
You have shown that your opinions on this matter are based on so many false premises that they cannot be considered legitimate at all. Furthermore, you are trying to make your stance sound so reasonable and rational, when the name itself is designed to be as emotionally inflammatory as possible. “Come on, guys, can’t we just have a calm and civil conversation about OMG DEATH PANELS?!” Can you see how ridiculous that sounds?
“The left is extremely hypocritical in bringing up Rush Limbaugh. Rush’s show came about, in part, to become equal time for excessive leftist smears over decades.”
If he’s the best you can do, then maybe you don’t deserve equal time. I’m not saying that the government should shut him down…just that he should be publicly shamed and ostracized.
“Rush’s show also became equal time for the subtle and destructive constant attacks on religion and morality”
That’s hilarious. Looking to Rush Limbaugh to defend religion and morality is like looking to pigs to defend soap.
“Also…the left’s apology and cover up for Bill Clinton’s many abusive incidents with women”
Wait, wait, wait. How come you instantly believe unproven accusations of sexual harassment against Bill Clinton, but the unproven accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas are evidence of the left-wing smear machine?
Are you starting to see the hypocrisy here?
“The charges raised against Clarence Thomas were given space by Democrats in the Senate!
Find a similar example on the right and we’ll talk.”
I’m pretty sure you just showed me the big one.
I love listening to liberals tell me what Rush has or has not said, done or not done, LOL.
Toby, what part of my comments about what Rush Limbaugh has said and done do you view as inaccurate?
Chris: “Tina, that describes the “death panel” lie to a tee.”
Name the elected officials who conspired with a right wing organization to target and ruin the reputation of a specific democratby pursuading someone to testify in a congrssional hearing about a supposed twenty year old incident. THAT would be an equivalent example.
The death panel accusation was expressed as an opinion about an element of legislation that would effect the lives of all Americans. It was asserted as a means of alerting people to what was (is) contained in the legislation. Exercising ones free speech right is not the same as an organized, targeted, specific venture, supported by media, to ruin the reputation and “kill” chances for approval by congress or the American people. What was done to Clarence Thomas was a high tech lynching, just as he said. It was orchestrated by powerful Democrats in the Senate (Kennedy) in cahoots with NOW and their willing puppet, Anita Hill.
“If you leave out the “orchestrated by elected officials” bit…”
I think that “bit” is important!
“This, on the other hand, doesn’t describe any of the incidents I brought up.”
Your opinion…your rules. I’m not required to paly by your rules…or buy into your opinion. I know that frustrates you…too bad.
“I have the same rule you’re describing here”
No you don’t. You find it necessary to monitor everything that anyone says and condemn it (makes you feel superior or you wouldn’t have to announce it). Then, after finding offense you monitor to see who agrees with you and who doesn’t so you can then find fault with them. Aren’t you exhausted?
If we had a media that was willing to report rather than cheerlead for the left while attack dogging the right I wouldn’t be so stubborn about this. We can’t count on the fourth estate anymore so we have to do a lot of damage control.
“You’re just trying really hard not to see how often this rule is broken by people on your side.”
And you are turning summersaults to make me, and certain people on my side (take it up with them!!!!!!!!!) adhere to your rules.
“Many Republicans claimed that President Obama had not provided his birth certificate. That was a lie.”
It was not a lie it was a legal difference of opinion that was taken to court!
“…I’m saying that you don’t have a problem with the tactics of smearing, character assassination, lies and deception as long as they’re directed at your political opponents.”
You have zero curiosity about the lack of vetting that the press did on candidate Obama or the secrecy about his school records. this secrecy and lack of interest from media is what inspired others to try to discover who candidate Obama was. You have zero curiosity about the video that shows Obama and his wife talking about his Muslim roots. You give a pass to a man that sat in Jeramiah Wrights church for twenty years. You have no curiosity about the questions raised about his social security card and how it was obtained.
I was curious about hings when I read about them. I was curious about outcome of a constitutional question. I did not have access to all of the informatiuon and documents and I did not form an opinion about any of it. I was an observer…period. You insist I condemn people who looked into these things based on whether or not this man was eligable to be our president and you call it a smear. Sorry dearie it just isn’t the same thing in my book.
“There was nothing valid about the death panels lie.”
OPINION! YES, there is something valid! In the private sector I have a choice about what insurance covers. if I don’t like it I can choose another plan. If government mandates (and the ultimate goal is universal coverage and you know it) NOBODY has a choice anymore and innovation (NEW CURES) will not happen anymore. YOU BET THERE WAS GOOD REASON TO POINT THIS OUT!!!!!!!
“It was absolutely a targeted character assassination.”
HORSEFEATHERS! It was a debate point in the midst of a political fight about a piece of legislation (eventually forced through the Congress with dirty tricks, lies and bribes).
“Well, it’s a good thing the health care law doesn’t do anything like this, then!”
http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/279495/obamacare-extends-its-tentacles-grace-marie-turner
“It doesn’t put us all under government control…”
(see above)
It sets the table for what the left ultimately wants…universal coverage governed by the federal government! You are too young and naive to realize how this is done.
“In fact, the idea that the health care bill amounted to a ‘government takeover of health care’ was another of Politifact’s ‘lies of the year.'”
I counter Politifacts list of lies with the opposing list found at Hotair…complete with links. I excerpted on example:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/05/obamacare-the-sum-of-all-fears/
Tina:
“No you don’t. You find it necessary to monitor everything that anyone says and condemn it (makes you feel superior or you wouldn’t have to announce it). Then, after finding offense you monitor to see who agrees with you and who doesn’t so you can then find fault with them. Aren’t you exhausted?”
“you are turning summersaults to make me, and certain people on my side (take it up with them!!!!!!!!!) adhere to your rules.”
Tina, all I ask is that you play by the “rules” of common sense and decency. You continue to act like this is such an unreasonable standard. Yes, it is exhausting, but I still think it’s an effort worth making.
“It was not a lie it was a legal difference of opinion that was taken to court!”
You fail to mention that this “legal difference of opinion” was laughed out of every court it was taken to. The “lawyers” who took this issue to court were completely unprofessional and had no real case, only a political agenda, and every judge who looked at the issue agreed.
“You have zero curiosity about the lack of vetting that the press did on candidate Obama or the secrecy about his school records.”
I don’t agree that President Obama was vetted less by the media than any other president. Is it customary for the mainstream media to give a lot of attention to the pastor of the church the president goes too? The Jeremiah Wright story, as well as the Bill Ayers story, were reported on all the time in the mainstream media during the 2008 campaign. The public was given lots of information about Obama’s history and still chose to elect him. He won fair and square.
I do think he should release his school records, but he isn’t legally required to, and that is not at all comparable to his birth certificate which he DID release during the campaign.
“this secrecy and lack of interest from media is what inspired others to try to discover who candidate Obama was. You have zero curiosity about the video that shows Obama and his wife talking about his Muslim roots.”
I’d be curious to see this video.
“You give a pass to a man that sat in Jeramiah Wrights church for twenty years.”
Obama denounced Wright’s words and said he didn’t agree with them. He also stopped going to that church. I tend to be forgiving of people when they make these efforts, be they Republican or Democrat. I’ve forgiven Herman Cain for his statements about Muslims, because he’s apologized for them and has since tried to expand his horizons and make amends. And I forgive Obama for his past associations. If every candidate were disqualified for going to a church that had some nutty views, both parties would have very different candidates.
“You have no curiosity about the questions raised about his social security card and how it was obtained.”
Oh lord…you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one. This is the lowest of Wing Nut Daily’s conspiracy theories, most heavily promoted by renowned loony toon Orly Taitz. If that’s where you’re going with this then I strongly suggest you quit while you’re ahead.
“I was curious about hings when I read about them. I was curious about outcome of a constitutional question. I did not have access to all of the informatiuon and documents and I did not form an opinion about any of it. I was an observer…period. You insist I condemn people who looked into these things based on whether or not this man was eligable to be our president and you call it a smear. Sorry dearie it just isn’t the same thing in my book.”
Tina, anyone who was genuinely curious about Obama’s birthplace or citizenship could have looked at the birth certificate he posted online, compared it to the requirements for proving citizenship on the State Department’s website, and been done with it. But they just kept digging, because they couldn’t accept that this man was in the White House. It was a smear. And I’m frankly amazed that you keep insisting otherwise. Plenty of conservatives and Republicans have acknowledged the ridiculousness of birtherism, and have admitted it went over the line. That you won’t join them really makes me feel like you won’t ever admit when people on your side of the aisle are wrong.
Can you answer a question, Tina? Can you tell me one instance wherein you think prominent Republicans or conservatives have crossed the line, and have targeted or smeared a liberal Democrat unfairly? Surely you can at least think of something. I have acknowledged that liberal Democrats have been guilty of this in the past; it would be absurd to deny that any political party has refrained from unfair and targeted attacks during their entire existence. So I recognize that my party has not been perfect. Can you admit the same? Can you let me know what actions Republicans and conservatives have taken that are not acceptable to you? Because if you can’t, then I have to conclude that anything is acceptable to you as long as it’s your party doing it. Do you believe in winning by any means necessary?
“http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/279495/obamacare-extends-its-tentacles-grace-marie-turner
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has released its long-awaited report outlining criteria for the Obama administration to determine what medical services most health insurance policies will be required to cover starting in 2014….”
Tina, you originally claimed that the health care law has created a system wherein “a government panel has the power to decide what procedures and remedies will be allowed and which will not.”
When I said this claim was incorrect, you then linked to a National Review article which points out the fact that the health care law allows the government more power to regulate what services health insurance policies will be required to cover.
Look, I’m not going to insult your intelligence or mine by explaining that regulating what services a health insurance policy must cover, and deciding what procedures doctors are allowed to perform, are in no way the same. You know this already. But I feel insulted that you apparently pretended not to see this big difference in order to…I don’t know, trick me into thinking that you proved your initial claim correct? No, that can’t have been your intention. I’m really not sure what you were trying to do there, but whatever it was, you didn’t succeed.
“”It doesn’t put us all under government control…”
(see above)”
Again, I have no idea what you are trying to prove here. Do you REALLY believe that regulating what policies insurance companies must cover is the same as mandating what procedures and remedies will be allowed and which will not? No, I know you can’t believe that.
And now I’m getting major deja vu, because I’m pretty sure we’ve had this exact same argument before…and that really depresses me, because it’s bad enough that we’ve had it once.
“It sets the table for what the left ultimately wants…universal coverage governed by the federal government! You are too young and naive to realize how this is done.”
LOL, Tina, this is hardly a secret. Yes, liberals do want universal coverage and we do believe that it is the government’s obligation to provide it. Most countries which have government-mandated universal coverage are doing much better than our own. Look at Sweden and Denmark.
I want to propose a thought experiment. Imagine Mitt Romney was elected president in 2008. Remember, this was at a time when the health care plan he implemented in his state–a plan which is remarkably similar to “ObamaCare”–was fairly uncontroversial and received a lot of bipartisan support. It’s pretty easy to imagine that as president, he probably would have pushed a nationwide healthcare plan that would have ended up being remarkably similar to “Obamacare.”
I can only imagine that Republicans in this timeline would have cheered the plan’s embrace of free market principles, while Democrats would have complained that it did not go far enough and gave too much away to corporations and insurance companies. Still, perhaps in this timeline we would have been spared from inane talk of “death panels.”
*sigh* That’s politics.
“You guys set the example. It doesn’t sound any more ridiculous than Republicans want to starve old people or the Tea Party is racist.”
I agree, this is unfair and Democrats and liberals should not say things like this.
I’ll have to respond more later.
Chris: “all I ask is that you play by the “rules” of common sense and decency.”
According to your assessment. Rush is one example where your assessment is emotionaly and PC driven, in my opinion. From my perspective you don’t understand what he does. You judge him based on a reporters standard. You can call his work despicable lies all day long and that’s fine with me. What you cannot do is get me to agree that you are right about him and the things you call lies. I get Rush…you don’t…end of story. 1 800 282-2882
Those on the left who attempt to counter Rush never quite pull it off. They think his commentary, absurdity, impersonations, parodies, etc. come from hatred. They are wrong, so when they turn their own hatred on it may entertain a few ppeople but it rarely educates, enlightens or causes them to think. There is nothing deep or convicted about the Bill Maher or Janeane Garofalo types on radio, TV, or in the blogs.
“You fail to mention that this “legal difference of opinion” was laughed out of every court it was taken to.”
“Laughed out of court” is spin dearie…the court agreed to hear the case more than once. In order for that to happen there has to be something more than frivilous accusations. The point is moot anyway since I was not ever a birther but simply curious…you brought it up!!!!!
“I don’t agree that President Obama was vetted less by the media than any other president. Is it customary for the mainstream media to give a lot of attention to the pastor of the church the president goes too? The Jeremiah Wright story, as well as the Bill Ayers story, were reported on all the time in the mainstream media during the 2008 campaign. The public was given lots of information about Obama’s history and still chose to elect him. He won fair and square.”
Yes he won fair and square with a lot of clever packaging and frivious promotuion (hope and change…commmon), big money, a loooooong international campaign that included rock band performances to ensure big crowds and television or movie industry sets, and a fawning, cheerleading group of reporters. The media did not go through his or his running mates garbage or interview every person that ever knew them to dig up dirt. They didn’t ask him tough questions. They didn’t laugh at his many gaffs or even mention them! They treated him like a celebrity!!!
Sarah Palin they treated like dog s*#t from the moment she finished her speech at the convention. If you can’t see that then you are deaf dumb and blind.
A couple of reporters last year admitted they “didn’t really know much about” Obama before he was elected…we posted that link or video on Post Scripts. It was quite an admission.
“It was a smear. And I’m frankly amazed that you keep insisting otherwise.”
I’m NOT insisting otherwise I’m just not interested in joining you in your opinion about it. As far as you are concerned its all settled. Nothing is settled as long as questions remain unanswered and as long as the media treats candidates from one party differently than they do the other. This causes confusion, doubt, curiosity, and lawsuits to obtain information that hasn’t been forthcoming or is kept under wraps.
That you won’t join them really makes me feel like you won’t ever admit when people on your side of the aisle are wrong.
If you look back through Post Scripts you will find at least one maybe two instances where I condemned a republican smear…I don’t recall what they were about. And I have no interest in this game of name that time when, especially since you have been unable or unwilling to name an instance where a Republican organization worked with Republicans in Congress to publically target and ruin the reputation of a candidate or appointee.
The republican party is not perfect because humans are not perfect. They make mistakes. However, they do not, to my knowledge, have a book endorsed and embraced by teachers unions, public unions, NOW, and other democrat support groups like ACORN with a rule #12. They have never had a “community organizer candidate” that taught at least one group how to use the tactics described in that book (rule #12). They do not, in short, organize to destroy.
His comments regarding his Muslim (faith) roots (slip? Misspeak?) appear at about .56 in the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY
Any republican candidate would be questioned (not quietly corrected) in a media interview under similar circumstances. It would be headline news and talk show fodder.
“you then linked to a National Review article which points out the fact that the health care law allows the government more power to regulate what services health insurance policies will be required to cover.”
In addition to implying that I am some kind of idiot you fail to realize that if this statement is true in the positive it is also true in the negative. They (HHS) will decide what will be covered. What impact do you think that will have in the real world? Think about it. What procedures will be guaranteed payment (by the government) and which will not? Docs are already refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients because they don’t pay adequately (or at all). What will they refrain from suggesting as treatment if government regulates what is covered (and what is not)> How many drug companies will have the incentive or certainty about the future to spend money developing life saving drugs if there is a chance that the government won’t put it on the list? Read this part of the statement again: “the health care law allows the government more power to regulate“. That is all you need to know. Until you have lived and worked in the real world, a world that is actually impacted by regulation please don’t pretend you understand what it will mean.
“I can only imagine that Republicans in this timeline would have cheered the plan’s embrace of free market principles…”
You can imagine all you want that doesn’t make it so.
I haven’t heard too many people on my side praise Romneycare as the best solution to our healthcare problems. And now that we can see the result there is even more opposition to it.
In case you haven’t noticed a lot of people are fed up with the mess government has made of our free republic and free markets.
I supported Romney in the primaries in 08 based on his business experience and my distaste for McCain. I preferred a state to a federal experiment re healthcare and since I wasn’t a citizen of his state I didn’t know much about his plan. Getting any progressive Democrat to agree to any free market solution is impossible…like hitting a brick wall…even as the entitlement and government control house of cards they carefully constructed over 60+ years crumbles beneath our feet.
Tina: “You judge him based on a reporters standard. You can call his work despicable lies all day long and that’s fine with me. What you cannot do is get me to agree that you are right about him and the things you call lies.”
Tina, I just find it depressing that we cannot agree that falsely accusing the president and our military of wiping out Christians in Uganda amounts to a despicable lie. That should not be a “reporter’s standard,” that should be a universal standard.
And I can’t help feeling that if this were not Rush Limbaugh, but a liberal commentator who made these remarks, you’d agree with me. I can’t help feeling that when you first read the remarks, your first instinct was to scramble and attempt to spin them into something not as bad as they obviously were.
Falsely accusing the president and our military of targeting Christians in Uganda is objectively wrong. You have to know this. I just feel like you’d really have to put up a struggle with your better angels in order to avoid admitting it.
And I feel like if Rush saying this is OK with you, then there’s pretty much NOTHING he can say that you would see as over the line. Because it’s Rush, and he is good. You are resting on that premise and you will continue to rest on that premise no matter how much counter-evidence you’re confronted with. That’s not rational, Tina. It’s not thinking. It’s sheep-like behavior.
“”Laughed out of court” is spin dearie…”
It may be editorialization but it is fairly accurate. The fact is that none of the cases came close to being successful.
“the court agreed to hear the case more than once. In order for that to happen there has to be something more than frivilous accusations.”
Several judges did rule that the cases were frivolous. In fact, Orly Taitz, one of the foremost leaders of the birther movement, was fined $20,000 by a U.S. District Court Judge for her misconduct in filing a frivolous birther lawsuit:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/carter.asp
If you read the quotation from the judge, “laughed out of court” is hardly an unreasonable interpretation.
“The point is moot anyway since I was not ever a birther but simply curious…you brought it up!!!!!”
Yes, I brought it up to show how you have accepted character assassination, deception and lies directed at President Obama.
“I’m NOT insisting otherwise I’m just not interested in joining you in your opinion about it. As far as you are concerned its all settled.”
As far as the LAW is concerned, the matter of Barack Obama’s natural-born citizenship is settled.
“Nothing is settled as long as questions remain unanswered”
Which questions do you believe remain unanswered?
“If you look back through Post Scripts you will find at least one maybe two instances where I condemned a republican smear…I don’t recall what they were about. And I have no interest in this game of name that time when, especially since you have been unable or unwilling to name an instance where a Republican organization worked with Republicans in Congress to publically target and ruin the reputation of a candidate or appointee.”
The birther smear is definitely “an instance where a Republican organization (several, actually) worked with Republicans in Congress (again, several) to publicly target and ruin the reputation of a candidate or appointee.”
“His comments regarding his Muslim (faith) roots (slip? Misspeak?) appear at about .56 in the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY”
Tina, Obama was saying that “John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith” in response to accusations that he was a Muslim. He was saying that John McCain had not made those accusations, like others had. In context, the meaning was clear. This was not an admission that he was a Muslim.
“In addition to implying that I am some kind of idiot”
Tina, I know you are not an idiot which is why I was surprised to see you make such a dumb argument. You said that the PPACA allows the government to determine what kind of treatment one gets, and to back that up, all you showed me was the well-known fact that the PPACA allows the government to impose more regulations on the insurance industry. You have to know that this is a silly way to argue your case.
“you fail to realize that if this statement is true in the positive it is also true in the negative. They (HHS) will decide what will be covered.”
Tina, so far the government has mandated that insurance companies EXPAND coverage. Far from taking away options from people in medical crises, the PPACA has forced insurance companies to be more generous in their policies, such as forbidding them from denying coverage from people based on a pre-existing condition, and allowing people to stay on their parents’ insurance plan for a longer period of time. If Republicans had their way in Congress, insurance companies would still be able to deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions. That does not create “choice” for people.
I am not sure you are correct that the PPACA allows the government to tell insurance companies what they CAN’T cover; I will have to get back to you on that, but I’m pretty sure the PPACA does not give the government that authority.
“What impact do you think that will have in the real world? Think about it. What procedures will be guaranteed payment (by the government) and which will not? Docs are already refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients because they don’t pay adequately (or at all). What will they refrain from suggesting as treatment if government regulates what is covered (and what is not)> How many drug companies will have the incentive or certainty about the future to spend money developing life saving drugs if there is a chance that the government won’t put it on the list? Read this part of the statement again: “the health care law allows the government more power to regulate”. That is all you need to know. Until you have lived and worked in the real world, a world that is actually impacted by regulation please don’t pretend you understand what it will mean.”
I understand these concerns, but I don’t understand your theory that somehow less government regulation would make them go away. If the government didn’t have any minimum standard of what must be covered, are you telling me that people would be more likely to get adequate care? I don’t see how you’ve made that case.
“You can imagine all you want that doesn’t make it so.”
But that’s basically what was happening before President Obama took office. The PPACA has more similarities than differences with Romneycare, and the individual mandate itself (which Republicans now claim is unconstitutional) was a popular idea among Republicans during the 1990s. It was even endorsed by the Heritage Foundation.
“I haven’t heard too many people on my side praise Romneycare as the best solution to our healthcare problems. And now that we can see the result there is even more opposition to it.”
The result is that it worked. More people are insured in Massachusetts than in any other state. I can see why that poses a problem to Republicans, who have been busy reshaping their entire platform into “Anything Obama is for, we are against.” Good results from Romneycare = bad results for Republicans.
“Getting any progressive Democrat to agree to any free market solution is impossible…like hitting a brick wall…”
Well, somehow they managed to agree to lots of free market solutions in the PPACA.
Chris: “I just find it depressing that we cannot agree that falsely accusing the president and our military of wiping out Christians in Uganda amounts to a despicable lie.”
I don’t want you to be sad but that is something you will have to deal with on your own.
I’m capable of erring in a similar situation, as I believe you have. I hope I would be willing to acknowledge my error. However, the animosity I feel given the record of progressive media bias will not go away any time soon. Liberal commentators are often mean spirited and more than willing to lie, as they do about what Rush says nearly every day. Rush did not have the facts and he acknowledged that as the segment ended. Had he intended a lie he wouldn’t have included that as part of the segment. The error lost him a few points with his fact auditors, however.
If the sound bite you call a lie was all that Rush said during the segment, and if Rush wasn’t known for his sarcasm, absurdity and commitment to the pursuit of the truth, I would agree with you that the sound bite in question would be a despicable lie. But Rush had a lot to say during the segment, including acknowledging toward the end that the self proclaimed “Christians” were not behaving like Christians at all but had been engaging in despicable barbaric activities. In doing so he admitted that he had spoken before he had the facts and his audience became aware of his mistake in the same moment. Rush doesn’t hide from his errors. His loyal followers did not take what he as gospel, as you indicate is your take on the segment. Most understand the cynicism that prompted the absurdity of his remarks. Anyone who doesn’t get it can call on open line Fridays for clarification. If they identify themselves as a liberal their call will move to the front of the line.
1 800 282-2882.
If the caller is polite and willing to have a conversation with Rush he will get an honest forthright explanation and will have fun in the process. If he is contentious and nasty the call will not result in clarification and will likely be quite short.
“I can’t help feeling that if this were not Rush Limbaugh, but a liberal commentator who made these remarks, you’d agree with me…”
My animosity toward many liberal commentators is the result of years of watching them perform very badly as talking heads for the mostly hard core progressive left. I try to give credit when on occasion one of them actually says something original or thought provoking, as does Rush!
“I can’t help feeling that when you first read the remarks, your first instinct was to scramble and attempt to spin them into something not as bad as they obviously were.”
There was nothing to spin.
I was listening with full attention on the morning this segment aired and I did not take what was said at face value. I realized that Rush had spoken before he had all of the facts; something he does very rarely. Later that day I read an article that explained what was happening so I knew for sure that cynicism about the Obama administration’s loyalties and intentions had driven his remarks. Obama is the man that said he wanted to fundamentally transform America…Iran has the same designs on America.
What is truly sad is that the possibility that what Rush said could be true is not all that absurd with this President. Obama treated England with disrespect by returning a special gift (a diplomacy gaff most likely but???) from the moment he came to office. Obama is the man who said we should talk with the leaders of Iran, a country that has sworn to eliminate Israel and has called the US the Great Satan. He curtly left Benjamin Netanyahu in a sitting room after meeting with him for only minutes to go off to dinner and then had him escorted out through a side door like he was the help. He did the same with the Dalai Lahma…garbage cans greeted him as he left by the back door. He has not treated Muslims dignitaries with such direspect or disregard but welcomed them to special dinners at the White House. His behavior breeds concern as well as cynicism.
“That’s not rational, Tina. It’s not thinking. It’s sheep-like behavior.”
This from the person who gathered this soundbite from liberal commentators with an axe to grind who would love to bring Rush down just because they cannot even begin to compete with him! Sounds like you’re the sheep to me! I have listened to Rush for over twenty years…how well do you know the liberal commentators you trust so much and why are you not concerned with the character assassination they engage in daily against Rush?
“I brought it up to show how you have accepted character assassination, deception and lies directed at President Obama.”
But apparently you are not content to merely “show” how I have supposedly accepted character assassination, deception and lies directed at the president isn’t enough for you. for some reason you will not let it go.
I, on the other hand have explained to you that I accept your opinion as free speech and allow you the courtesy of using this forum to express freely your position.
I could easily accuse you of character assassination, deception and lies directed toward Rush but what would be the point? We disagree about the character of the two men. SO WHAT? Neither of us is a judge with the power to condemn the other to a life pounding rocks. Whatever influence we might have is minimal and hardly the last word for those reading here.
Is it because you would like to like me and this one little problem is as a thorn in your side? Don’t despair, you will likely find a way to work it out in time and your relationships, when you do, will only grow stronger. Just so you know, our differences in approach and opinion do not stop me from enjoying your company here on Post Scripts.
“The birther smear is definitely “an instance where a Republican organization (several, actually) worked with Republicans in Congress (again, several) to publicly target and ruin the reputation of a candidate or appointee.”
They worked with republicans in congress to resolve the question. If the latest information is accurate the leaders of this investigation aren’t partisan but interested in constitutional interpretation. Their latest targets are both Republicans:
http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20111025/OPINION01/110250380/-Birther-movement-clearly-nonpartisan
As I said many times before, I am a curious observer of the ongoing charges and nothing more.
“As far as the LAW is concerned, the matter of Barack Obama’s natural-born citizenship is settled.”
I was speaking of all of the unanswered questions about Obama’s record and past. His grades…is he truly the smart man that is claimed? His off the cuff remarks make him sound like a fourth grader at times. The questions about his social security number intrigue but not enough to prompt research on my part. As I said if the media had done its job a great deal of this would have been handled before the election. Obamas garbage was sacred and his records kept hidden. No one was interested in asking questions or delving into his past. He did not receive the same treatment as a candidate that Sarah Palin did. For some reason you don’t seem have a problem with that, not the slightest bit of curiosity, but you take great exception to the curiosity I expressed on this humble blog after you brought it up…very strange.
“I understand these concerns, but I don’t understand your theory that somehow less government regulation would make them go away. If the government didn’t have any minimum standard of what must be covered, are you telling me that people would be more likely to get adequate care?”
I’m telling you that the free market will create many choices and options and more than adequate care for all citizens. There are many ideas and solutions that would make the system work much better both in terms of cost and availability of care. It is government intrusion, above all else, that has caused healthcare to go up in price and offer fewer choices.
Government regulation should not impede citizens or companies from obtaining or creating alternatives, choices, or new treatments. Government regulation should not act as an impedement to doctors as they decide how to treat their patients. Government should not act as a go between between patients and their doctors. Government, in short, should stay out of the business and decision making process with regard to healthcare and regulate only for the safety and protection of citizens rights. (and no I don’t think healthcare is a right. I do think that most Americans are very charitable and would seek workable solutions in the private sector for those who can’t afford care).
“…was a popular idea among Republicans during the 1990s. It was even endorsed by the Heritage Foundation.”
We’ve seen the result and it stinks. We’ve changed our minds! That is the beauty of leaving those things to the states that are not enumerated in the Constitution for the federal government to do. We get a chance to evaluate and accept or reject an idea with our feet.
“The result is that it worked.”
About as well as the economy and budget in California right now! No Chris it hasn’t really worked. More people are insured…in a system that will cost them dearly…much more than if governemnt was out of the equation. It is popular among the people but the bill will soon come due. We’ll see how popular it is then. Just like the big ifdea that taxpayers can afford to fund premium healthcare and retirement benefits for government employees this will eventually catch up with them. The government solution is more costly…period!
“…somehow they managed to agree to lots of free market solutions in the PPACA.”
And as long as you buy that deception you will continue to believe that government is the best game in town. History tells a different story.
I will let you have the last word; I’ve spent too much time on this nonesense already.
Tina: “If the sound bite you call a lie was all that Rush said during the segment, and if Rush wasn’t known for his sarcasm, absurdity and commitment to the pursuit of the truth, I would agree with you that the sound bite in question would be a despicable lie.”
There was no “sound bite,” Tina. I read the entire transcript on Rush Limbaugh’s website.
Keep in mind that the transcripts are posted after the entire show airs. So the transcript was posted AFTER Rush acknowledged the unspecified “accusations” against the LRA.
Yet that didn’t stop him from posting the transcript under the headline “Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians
Once again: this was posted after Rush Limbaugh had already been informed about the Lord’s Resistance Army and what they do. And yet he (or whoever chose the title for the transcript, but they are a reflection of him and he could have had it changed at any time) chose to further the despicable lie that our president and military are “targeting Christians” even AFTER he knew that this was false. Anyone who had a “commitment to the pursuit of the truth” would not have done this.
“But Rush had a lot to say during the segment, including acknowledging toward the end that the self proclaimed “Christians” were not behaving like Christians at all but had been engaging in despicable barbaric activities.”
He did not acknowledge this, he acknowledged that they were being “accused” of “some really bad stuff.” He never confirmed that these accusations were true, either on that broadcast or any subsequent broadcast. He has not admitted his error nor has he apologized.
“In doing so he admitted that he had spoken before he had the facts and his audience became aware of his mistake in the same moment. Rush doesn’t hide from his errors. His loyal followers did not take what he as gospel, as you indicate is your take on the segment.”
Tina, I pointed out in our original conversation that many of his followers DID take his words as gospel. So many that Sen. Jim Inhoffe (R) felt the need to take to the Senate floor and correct Limbaugh’s falsehoods. Erick Erickson also said he was being flooded with calls and e-mails from people who were furious that Obama was targeting Christians in Uganda, and corrected the record (without mentioning Rush by name) on his blog. You underestimate Rush’s influence while overestimating the average intelligence and research capability of his fans, who swallowed this myth hook, line and sinker.
I’m also curious, did you watch the video I posted a while back of a victim of the LRA responding to Rush? I will post it again. Maybe if you watch it you will see the hurt that he caused with his thoughtless accusations.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/heartbreaking-former-abductee-responds-to-rush-limbaughs-lra-comments/
“If the caller is polite and willing to have a conversation with Rush he will get an honest forthright explanation and will have fun in the process. If he is contentious and nasty the call will not result in clarification and will likely be quite short.”
I have never heard Rush treat a caller who disagreed with him with anything but contempt. It doesn’t matter how respectful the caller is, he usually shouts over them, calls them a socialist, and hangs up. And yes, I listen to Rush frequently on the radio, not just through any “soundbites” I happen to come across on liberal blogs. Every time I have made a comment about Rush on this site, I have gone straight to the transcripts first to confirm that what I have heard was not taken out of context. Amazingly, the context usually makes it worse.
“There was nothing to spin.”
Of course there was. Falsely accusing the president and the military of targeting Christians in Uganda is objectively wrong. Everyone knows this. It is the definition of spin to try and find ways around that objective fact.
“I was listening with full attention on the morning this segment aired and I did not take what was said at face value.”
Well, that’s good, but I hope you realize that you can’t take ANYTHING Rush says at face value, since he’s almost always wrong.
“I realized that Rush had spoken before he had all of the facts; something he does very rarely.”
He does this all the time. I posted another recent example last week: he jumped all over a tabloid story reporting that Michelle Obama (whom he derogatorily refers to as “Moochelle,” and can you imagine your reaction if a Republican first lady were treated that way?) was in a feud with TV chef Paula Deen. He reported this story as fact, but Deen quickly denied the rumors. Once again, no apology, no retraction from Rush.
“Obama is the man that said he wanted to fundamentally transform America…Iran has the same designs on America.”
Oh, good lord. Now you’re just being silly.
“What is truly sad is that the possibility that what Rush said could be true is not all that absurd with this President.”
You have GOT to be kidding me. Of course it’s absurd. You are absurd for believing this.
And Rush knew that his audience would easily believe it, even if it were false…he is manipulating his audience’s stupidity.
“Obama treated England with disrespect by returning a special gift (a diplomacy gaff most likely but???) from the moment he came to office.”
This is yet another false right-wing smear. The Winston Churchill bust was not a gift, it was a loan, according to both the British Embassy and the White House.
“Obama is the man who said we should talk with the leaders of Iran, a country that has sworn to eliminate Israel and has called the US the Great Satan.”
He believes he can negotiate with the enemy. He may be wrong, he may be right.
“He curtly left Benjamin Netanyahu in a sitting room after meeting with him for only minutes to go off to dinner and then had him escorted out through a side door like he was the help. He did the same with the Dalai Lahma…garbage cans greeted him as he left by the back door. He has not treated Muslims dignitaries with such direspect or disregard but welcomed them to special dinners at the White House. His behavior breeds concern as well as cynicism.”
Haven’t heard of these incidents but I suspect they are just more unconfirmed baloney.
But even if they were true, none of what you wrote above makes the idea that he would wipe out Christians in Uganda any more believable. Unless you think it’s a small step from returning a bust of Winston Churchill to the Brits, to declaring genocide on Christians. Curse that slippery slope!
“This from the person who gathered this soundbite from liberal commentators”
Once again, nope. I read the entire transcript myself.
“Sounds like you’re the sheep to me! I have listened to Rush for over twenty years…how well do you know the liberal commentators you trust so much and why are you not concerned with the character assassination they engage in daily against Rush?”
It’s not a character assassination if it’s true, Tina.
“I could easily accuse you of character assassination, deception and lies directed toward Rush”
No, you couldn’t, because nothing I have said about Rush has been a lie.
“We disagree about the character of the two men. SO WHAT?”
It matters to me because Rush and people like him negatively effect our entire political process. He is perhaps the man most responsible for dumbing down the electorate. For evidence I need only to once again point you to the fact that Sen. Inhoffe felt the need to respond to his constituency who actually believe that President Obama was targeting Christians in Uganda. A quick Google search of “Lord’s Resistance Army” could have clarified this for them, but they took Rush Limbaugh, a proven liar, at his word instead.
“They worked with republicans in congress to resolve the question.”
The question was resolved when Obama posted his birth certificate online in 2008. There was no question whether or not this was a valid birth certificate, except from people who couldn’t accept it.
“If the latest information is accurate the leaders of this investigation aren’t partisan but interested in constitutional interpretation.”
The leaders mentioned in that link are all well-known crazy people. And their “constitutional interpretation” completely ignores the 14th Amendment, which makes it very clear what a natural born citizen is.
“As I said many times before, I am a curious observer of the ongoing charges and nothing more.”
I find this cowardly, Tina. The evidence is overwhelmingly in one direction, but you won’t acknowledge that because…why? Do you have birther friends who will be mad at you if you do?
“The questions about his social security number intrigue but not enough to prompt research on my part.”
Well, it was enough to prompt research on MY part, and in my research I found that the charge was completely bogus. Do the same research and you will reach the same conclusion.
“As I said if the media had done its job a great deal of this would have been handled before the election.”
Do presidents routinely have their birthplace and social security number challenged in the media? Not that I can recall, but then you’ve been at this longer than I have.
“I’m telling you that the free market will create many choices and options and more than adequate care for all citizens.”
But it hasn’t done that. It has failed. When insurance companies are allowed to discriminate based on a pre-existing condition, they are all going to do so. In that case, there will be a lot of people who cannot find a good health insurance plan. Their choice is constrained. When the government forbids insurance companies from doing this, then people have more of a choice.
“Government regulation should not impede citizens or companies from obtaining or creating alternatives, choices, or new treatments. Government regulation should not act as an impedement to doctors as they decide how to treat their patients. Government should not act as a go between between patients and their doctors.”
I agree. Thankfully, the PPACA does not do any of these things.
“Government, in short, should stay out of the business and decision making process with regard to healthcare and regulate only for the safety and protection of citizens rights.”
That’s what the PPACA does.
“We’ve seen the result and it stinks. We’ve changed our minds!”
Changing your minds is one thing, but today Republicans act like this idea was invented by socialists on the left. That’s not honest or fair.
“About as well as the economy and budget in California right now!”
Massachusetts is doing better than California by every economic measure.
I find it fascinating that conservatives have written themselves into such a corner, that they now find themselves having to trash the flagship accomplishment of their only viable candidate.