THREE MORALITY PLAYS
IGNORE SAN FRAN?Is it possible we are taking the wrong tactic when dealing with the unruly miscreants in San Francisco. I would love to repeat one of my father’s favorite jokes, but I am going to refrain. The punch-line is simple: It’s for the attention!
That’s the whole thing when it comes to the misc. revelries in San Fran. It’s all for the attention. Malkin has an excellent post about the events in question.
But – my question, if we ignore it, what would they do?
Ace of Spades
RUSH LIMBAUGH’S BIG MOUTH
WHITE HOUSE NOT HAPPY WITH RUSH
The full text of the remarks.
“…RUSH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.
CALLER: I am.
RUSH: You can't be Republican.
CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.
RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.
CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?
RUSH: As long as it takes.
CALLER: How long?
RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.
CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever?
RUSH: No, Bill -- (Laughing) or Mike. I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.
CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: And I do listen to you, but --
RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.
CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?
RUSH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question; it's not what you want to hear, and so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn't say forever. Nothing takes forever. That's not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything -- do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, "Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it's not, so screw it"? You don't live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don't know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican. …"
NOTE: I’m just as annoyed by the above as by the “Phony Soldier” remark. I am so sick and tired of conservatives telling us just who is and isn't a Republican I could....!CALLER: I am.
RUSH: You can't be Republican.
CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.
RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.
CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?
RUSH: As long as it takes.
CALLER: How long?
RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.
CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever?
RUSH: No, Bill -- (Laughing) or Mike. I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.
CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: And I do listen to you, but --
RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.
CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?
RUSH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question; it's not what you want to hear, and so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn't say forever. Nothing takes forever. That's not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything -- do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, "Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it's not, so screw it"? You don't live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don't know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican. …"
It appears as though the White House is not happy with Rush Limbaugh’s lack of ‘class’ due to his latest over the top remark.
Talking Points Memo
The Horse’s Mouth
The White House Briefing
“…Q And then I have another question, unrelated to this. Apparently this week Rush Limbaugh used the phrase "phony soldiers" to describe American troops who oppose the Iraq war. Given that the President has commented last week on the MoveOn ad of General Petraeus, and called it disgusting, is this something that the President would feel compelled to comment on?
MS. PERINO: It's the first I've heard of that comment. I'm taking that it is accurate; I have not heard it myself. The President believes that if you are serving in the military that you have the right that every American has, which is you are free to express yourself in any way that you want to. And there are some that oppose the war, and that's okay.
Q And the use of the phrase "phony soldiers" to describe these --
MS. PERINO: It's not one that the President would have used, no….”
WAIT A MINUTE: Rick Moran and I are agreeing on this one? There is obviously a disturbance in the Force somewhere.
“…But Limbaugh’s utterance was truly despicable. And no amount of spinning can shake the fact that on its own merits, without reference to anything Moveon or any other lefty group has done to slime the troops (Code Pink razzing wounded soldiers out in front of Walter Reed, anyone?), the slur should make not just anti-war soldiers angry but all of our military upset. Limbaugh, quite simply, has intruded. And he should butt out. If one soldier wants to call out another for being “phony,” that’s one thing. But Limbaugh is an outsider and has no business sliming people for beliefs that are just as heartfelt as those who believe in the mission.
Now, no one who is serious and sane believes that Rush Limbaugh hates the troops. And because he does so obviously care about them, he must publicly apologize on the air for his remark. And, as I mentioned, he should apologize to the entire US Military. These last four years have been tough on these guys – tougher than on any other group of American soldiers since World War II. And despite claims to the contrary on the left, the military doesn’t train automatons. The secret to American success on the battlefield has always been the ability of our people to think independently, to act decisively, to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves. Non thinking robots cannot function in our military….”
Captain’s Quarters Now, no one who is serious and sane believes that Rush Limbaugh hates the troops. And because he does so obviously care about them, he must publicly apologize on the air for his remark. And, as I mentioned, he should apologize to the entire US Military. These last four years have been tough on these guys – tougher than on any other group of American soldiers since World War II. And despite claims to the contrary on the left, the military doesn’t train automatons. The secret to American success on the battlefield has always been the ability of our people to think independently, to act decisively, to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves. Non thinking robots cannot function in our military….”
The Van Der Galien Gazette
Outside the Beltway
From TMP:
“…I've just learned that Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) will be introducing a resolution in the House of Representatives on Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" remark. This is significant because it has the potential to dramatically up the stakes in this fight. If the Democratic leadership allows it to go for a vote, it will force all the Republicans in the House to either vote for it, against it, or skip the vote -- and to pass judgment on the powerful conservative talk show host's contention that troops who don't support President Bush's war policies are "phony soldiers." It will also potentially present the Dem leadership with a not-so-easy choice. Many people will naturally call on the leadership to allow the resolution to come to a vote, which is not necessarily something the leadership might want, since it could look like a tit-for-tat reso in retaliation for the measure condemning MoveOn. It also is potentially problematic for some in the leadership because there is an internal sentiment that it's not Congress' job to go around denouncing the remarks, however reprehensible, of private citizens.
Sources tell us that there's a lot of interest in this resolution among rank and file Dem House members, and that it may come up for a vote soon. There's no guarantee by any means that this will end up happening, though it's likely that there will be some pressure on the leadership make it happen. Udall, whose office confirmed to me that he'd introduce the reso on Monday, has powerful incentive to drum up attention for it as a Senate candidate in Colorado…”
Sources tell us that there's a lot of interest in this resolution among rank and file Dem House members, and that it may come up for a vote soon. There's no guarantee by any means that this will end up happening, though it's likely that there will be some pressure on the leadership make it happen. Udall, whose office confirmed to me that he'd introduce the reso on Monday, has powerful incentive to drum up attention for it as a Senate candidate in Colorado…”
The Hill
“…“Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted,” the Democratic leaders wrote to Mays. “It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.”..”
NOTHING NEW ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR
Rush Limbaugh gives the same treatment to anyone he feels is not “conservative” enough, including good, decent Republican office-holders like John McCain or Lindsey Graham.
Rush has inspired a “Lindsey Graham Watch”.
“…See, I Told You So: Democrats Can't Stand Bush Speech, Still Act As If 9/11 Didn't Happen: "I think Bush's real problem here isn't the left or isn't the media, because the left and the media is always going to be against Bush. I think his real problem is his own party: the McCains, the Hagels, the Lindsey Grahams and others who end up being the useful idiots of the left. If the Republicans were united on this and outspoken and confrontational, we would be in a stronger position and speeches like this last night would not even be necessary. "…”
Or this one from Hot Air. Over the top conservatives (who have nothing to do with the GOP) have taken their cues from Rush about Lindsey.
From American Thinker:
“…Voters have a weapon to make their voices heard, and it's the vote. Perhaps the choicest target for GOP primary voters is Senator Lindsay Graham, who is up for reelection next year.
Already Senator John McCain has completely blown his chances at the GOP presidential nomination by his support for a miserable immigration bill, an assault on free speech through the McCain-Feingold Act, and decades of pandering to the New York Times.
The Bush Administration does not try to appease Al Qaeda, bless them, but it regularly kowtows to Ted Kennedy. The immigration fraud is the biggest disappointment so far, in George W. Bush's two terms in office. By continuing to push the utterly divisive bill, the President is risking a major GOP defeat in 2008. If conservatives decide to stay home in the next election, the Bush Administration will be remembered for destroying the conservative party of the United States for a generation.
Conservatives should not walk away from the GOP, because that means electoral suicide. Instead, we should run conservative candidates against "Senator Gramnesty," as Rush Limbaugh has aptly labeled him. Lindsay Graham is a human being, with faults and virtues. But he has been suckered into the glamour of Kennedy and McCain, and no longer represents his voters. If a solid conservative candidate can be found to beat him in the primaries, he can retire to pasture.
South Carolina is still likely to elect another GOP conservative, if he is decent and credible, and understands the voters' revulsion against the Washington elite. Thomas Jefferson famously said that the "tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants," every now and then. Fortunately, we have a less violent way of expressing our outrage at the Rogue Senate: A solid primary vote against Senate immigration sell-outs, like Senator Lindsay Graham….”
Already Senator John McCain has completely blown his chances at the GOP presidential nomination by his support for a miserable immigration bill, an assault on free speech through the McCain-Feingold Act, and decades of pandering to the New York Times.
The Bush Administration does not try to appease Al Qaeda, bless them, but it regularly kowtows to Ted Kennedy. The immigration fraud is the biggest disappointment so far, in George W. Bush's two terms in office. By continuing to push the utterly divisive bill, the President is risking a major GOP defeat in 2008. If conservatives decide to stay home in the next election, the Bush Administration will be remembered for destroying the conservative party of the United States for a generation.
Conservatives should not walk away from the GOP, because that means electoral suicide. Instead, we should run conservative candidates against "Senator Gramnesty," as Rush Limbaugh has aptly labeled him. Lindsay Graham is a human being, with faults and virtues. But he has been suckered into the glamour of Kennedy and McCain, and no longer represents his voters. If a solid conservative candidate can be found to beat him in the primaries, he can retire to pasture.
South Carolina is still likely to elect another GOP conservative, if he is decent and credible, and understands the voters' revulsion against the Washington elite. Thomas Jefferson famously said that the "tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants," every now and then. Fortunately, we have a less violent way of expressing our outrage at the Rogue Senate: A solid primary vote against Senate immigration sell-outs, like Senator Lindsay Graham….”
MY RANT OF THE DAY
Once upon a time I though Rush was great. I listened to him, religiously, for nearly 15 years. But, when he started attacking my friend, Lindsey Graham, it made me mad. Limbaugh’s parodies are funny when they are justified, and they are satire. But, somewhere along the line they turned malicious. THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK ILL OF A FELLOW REPUBLICAN. Rush talks a good game about Ronald Reagan, but when it comes down to practicing what Reagan preached, he’s nothing but an empty suit.
THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK ILL OF A FELLOW REPUBLICAN
I’ve been wondering when this was going to happen. Rush has a problem he has passed on to Hannity, Coulter, Gallagher, Reagan, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Anyone who isn’t 100% ‘CONSERVATIVE” pure, and this isn’t Ronald Reagan’s conservative either, but a far darker, more intrusive form of conservative that is so conservative and so intrusive it is – shall we suggest – liberal.
You don’t plot the removal of a Republican office-holder because they don’t do what you want them to do. You don’t belittle someone who says they are Republican but don’t follow your party-line, which is a little to extreme to be Republican. I was wondering when Rush Limbaugh was going to have his Don Imus moment. This might be it.
I think the problem is the fact that he demeaned a vet who is a Republican because the vet doesn’t like the War. We are fighting this war for freedom of speech and expression. Rush has every right to say exactly what he thinks. So does the vet.
RINO – Republican in Name Only – is one of the worst, most derogatory phrases I know. Rush has turned it into an art form. The problem is, and maybe I am enjoying this moment, he is no more Republican than my 22 year old niece is.
THE PROBLEM?
The problem is the fact that Limbaugh finally stepped in it to the point where he is now embarrassing the GOP and putting our people in the House and Senate in a bad position. He has undone all the good PR that came out of the MoveOn.org blunder. It isn’t the fact that the said what he did, it is the injudicious way he said it.
Today’s conservatives need to grow up and face a specific reality of life. Just because people don’t agree with your John Birch form of what being a good conservative should be is no license to kill – verbally.
Do I want rush to lose his job? Heavens no! I want him to temper his language against good decent Republicans. I want all the other little lock-step conservatives to follow suit. Is that too much to ask when so much is at stake?
THE MICHAEL MEDVED COLUMN ON SLAVERY
Wow! This is a powerful read. Medved deserves the “Profile in Courage” award for speaking the truth.
“…As the great African-American historian Nathan Huggins pointed out, “virtually all of the enslavement of Africans was carried out by other Africans” but the concept of an African “race” was the invention of Western colonists, and most African traders “saw themselves as selling people other than their own.” In the final analysis, Yale historian David Brion Davis in his definitive 2006 history “Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World” notes that “colonial North America…surprisingly received only 5 to 6 percent of the African slaves shipped across the Atlantic.” Meanwhile, the Arab slave trade (primarily from East Africa) lasted longer and enslaved more human beings than the European slavers working the other side of the continent. According to the best estimates, Islamic societies shipped between 12 and 17 million African slaves out of their homes in the course of a thousand years; the best estimate for the number of Africans enslaved by Europeans amounts to 11 million. In other words, when taking the prodigious and unspeakably cruel Islamic enslavements into the equation, at least 97% of all African men, women and children who were kidnapped, sold, and taken from their homes, were sent somewhere other than the British colonies of North America. In this context there is no historical basis to claim that the United States bears primary, or even prominent guilt for the depredations of centuries of African slavery….”
I think Medved deserves a little credit for having the courage to tackle such a damning and daunting subject. Captain Ed disagrees to a point. (Heading Right Commentary ) He feels Medved was a bit ‘tone deaf’ on the subject. Frankly I can’t get over the fact that someone would just wade into this debate, both guns barreling and present documented historical fact, not “Truth”. There is a difference between “Truth” and fact. As a historian, I want “Facts” and not truth. Truth is arrived at via viewpoint. Fact come documented evidence. Then, when juxtaposition with Medved’s previous column on Native American Genocide, then I don’t find the topic or his essay awkward at all.
A QUICK RANT
The documented evidence is that the first abolitionist movements began in New England in the 1690’s. One of the very first abolitionists was my ancestor, Sarah Johnson. She decide the easiest way to stop the enslavement of “Black-Africans” was to make it socially unacceptable, which indeed happened in New England.
Medved’s previous subject, the “genocide” of Native Americans by white settlers is one of my favorite topics. As a student of the “Wild West” and a one-day biographer of Kit Carson, this is one of those topics that has been so abused it is an obscenity. Do you ever see mention of the atrocities committed against the settlers?
Have you ever heard the Hannah Dustin story, or that of her descendents in Minnesota in 1863? Don’t ever preach to me about the “White” genocide. I’ll pull out my letters, and the first person depositions about what happened to my great-great grandparents. Little Crow took my great-grandmother’s baby brother and speared him then threw it into a tree. He was still alive. While Alma’s grandmother was alive, they cut out her tongue, tortured her, then scalped her. They scalped her parents. Her mother survived for two weeks and tied of typhoid. Alma was about 6 years old at the time. Don’t ever mention the inhumanity of white settlers to me.
FYI - My real problem with the Medved piece on slavery is he did not go far enough to expose the extent of Islamic slavers throughout the history of Europe. I think the one problem we have with concentrating on the slavery of Africans in the US is the fact that millions of Europeans were also enslaved. Islamic slavers were equal opportunity captors. They practiced their own version of equal rights. No one, not even their own people were safe from their clutches.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Stix Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, , third world county, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, Church and State, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
![Pink Flamingo [Home]](http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/blog_photos_album/flamingo_crossing.jpg)
