One difference between Limbaugh and Carville? Limbaugh is still saying he wants Obama to fail
SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh purported to favorably contrast his repeated statements that he wants President Obama to "fail" with Democratic strategist James Carville's statement -- prior to learning of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that "I hope [President Bush] doesn't succeed." In fact, whereas Carville reportedly retracted his statement immediately upon learning of the terrorist attacks and subsequently urged Democrats to support Bush's anti-terrorism efforts, Limbaugh has repeated his desire to see Obama fail throughout the current economic crisis and has gone so far as to say that he "hope[s]" Obama's stimulus package "prolongs the recession."
On March 11, Rush Limbaugh purported to favorably contrast his repeated statements that he wants President Obama to "fail" with a statement Democratic strategist James Carville made before learning of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- that "I hope [President Bush] doesn't succeed." Limbaugh argued that his own statement was "purely uttered for the sake of my country" but that Carville's statement is evidence that "it is standard operating procedure for the Democrat Party to not do things in the best interests of the country." In fact, whereas Carville reportedly retracted his statement immediately upon learning of the terrorists attacks and urged Democrats to support Bush's anti-terrorism efforts in the months that followed, Limbaugh made his statement amid the current economic crisis, has repeated his desire to see Obama fail several times since then, and has gone so far as to say that he "hope[s]" Obama's stimulus package "prolongs the recession."
On the morning of September 11, 2001 -- before learning of the terrorist attacks -- Carville said: "I don't care if people like him [Bush] or not, just so they don't vote for him and his party. That is all I care about. ... I hope he doesn't succeed, but I am a partisan democrat. But the average person wants him to succeed." According to Fox News' Bill Sammon, "Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: 'Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!' " Sammon reported on the same incident in an October 7, 2002, Washington Times article, writing:
Mr. Greenberg's phone rang, then Mr. Shrum's again, with the news that a second plane had hit the other tower. It looked like a coordinated attack by terrorists.
Before anyone else could leave, Mr. Carville was on his feet.
The cynical strategist, who had just described Washington as "a city that operates on fear," suddenly felt a stab of worry about his wife -- in the White House this very moment -- and their two young daughters across town.
"Disregard everything we just said," Corporal Cueball [Carville] commanded. "This changes everything."
Asked on March 11 by CNN Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer about the 2001 comments, Carville contrasted his immediate retraction with Limbaugh's continued statements that he hopes Obama fails.
From CNN's transcript of the March 11 edition of The Situation Room:
CARVILLE: First of all, the guy that wrote that is Bill Sammon, and he works at Fox and I've always find him to be a straight guy. To be fair to me, I said, look, everything I said, I just said everything I said, I you know, given the circumstances, everything was changed. Thank God I had the good sense to realize the United States was at war, unlike Rush Limbaugh, who four times after he said it when the United States is at war fighting three different wars, kept insisting that he wanted the president to fail in a time of war. Again, I was pretty clear when I read that report, that Bill did report that I said that after I found out.
BLITZER: But let me just be precise, James. Did you say that morning, did you say that you hoped President Bush would fail?
CARVILLE: I don't know what I said that morning. I know him to be a reporter. Once I found out that the country was at war, I said I don't mean whatever I said, disregard it. I had the good sense, I presumably to the extent I can remember seven and a half years ago, to say that. And I was grateful he put that in.
Moreover, following the September 11 attacks, Carville repeatedly expressed support for Bush's anti-terrorism efforts and encouraged Democrats to do the same -- even while opposing Bush's domestic agenda.
- On October 9, 2001, Carville said to former President Bill Clinton at a speech (transcript accessed in the Nexis database): "I can't tell you how proud I am of you as ex-president, in the support you're giving this president, and support that you're giving our country and the support that you're giving the people who have been the victims of this terrible tragedy."
- According to the Hotline (accessed via Nexis), The Christian Science Monitor reported that Carville said at a December 11, 2001, Monitor breakfast that Bush "is doing a good job on the war and Democrats ought to support him on the war. That doesn't mean that this translates into support of his domestic policies. He is doing better on the war than I would have suspected under the circumstances. It don't think it is like a total surprise. I did not think he would be a bad American. [But] he is doing probably worse on economic and domestic issues than I would have thought."
- In a December 10, 2001, Democracy Corps memo, Carville -- along with Democratic strategists Stan Greenberg and Bob Shrum -- wrote: "Democrats can and should support the President abroad while standing up for their principles here at home."
- In a November 13, 2001, Democracy Corps memo, Carville, Greenberg, and Shrum wrote: "It is important to support the President and set a tone that lacks a sharp partisan quality. Everyone is committed to the security and safety of the country. But Democrats should feel free to attack wrong-headed Republican congressional initiatives, even separating the House Republicans from the President."
By contrast, Limbaugh has not retracted his January 16 statement about Obama -- made in the midst of the current economic crisis -- that "I hope he fails." Rather, Limbaugh has defended the comment and repeated it. Indeed, while Carville repeatedly voiced his support for Bush's anti-terrorism efforts following the September 11 attacks, Limbaugh has made clear that his desire for Obama to fail extends to hoping that Obama's policies would actually hurt the American economy. On February 13 (subscription required), for example, Limbaugh said of Obama's stimulus package: "I hope it prolongs the recession." During the same broadcast, Limbaugh said: "Of course I want Obama to fail. And after this stimulus bill package passes, I want it to fail."
In his February 28 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Limbaugh described "[t]his notion that I want the president to fail" as "nothing more than common sense."
And as Media Matters for America documented, Limbaugh said on February 27: "The dirty little secret ... is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it. We want him to fail because we want to preserve our country as we found it. We do not want to see a successful attack on capitalism."
From the March 11 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: OK, it's finally been posted. I've been waiting for this. When I got in here to our broadcast complex this morning, there was an email here from Bill Sammon at Fox News. You know, he's the, he's the D.C. bureau chief there, and he said, Rush, I'm working on a piece here, I hope to have it ready by the time your show starts, and here it is. And I read this, and I just smiled. Mouth fell open a little bit, and I just smiled. And then Bill Sammon asked me for any input, would you like to reply to what I learned, so I sent him a note back. And the story has been posted at FoxNews.com, it's also linked, by the way, at the Drudge Report.
The headline, "Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail," but that is only half the story. The press never reported that Democrat strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the September 11th terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said that he wanted Obama's policies to fail.
Here you go folks, listen to this. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terror attacks on America, Democrat strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters quote: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed." Unquote. Carville was joined by Democrat pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. Greenberg admitted: "Well we rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him." Greenberg wanted to do a poll that would cause the American people to turn against Bush on the morning of 9-11.
You see the dirty little secret is that an honest utterance by me, purely uttered for the sake of my country, is turned into a scandal, and last week it was number two news item in this country, according to some media group. The economy was number one, I was the number two group. Yet it is standard operating procedure for the Democrat Party to not do things in the best interests of the country but rather in the best interests of their party. I am not the Republican Party, and I didn't say what I said for the benefit of the Republican Party. I said what I said because I love America and our people and I want everyone to succeed.
After Greenberg said, yeah, we rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him and I'm wanting them to turn against him, I want the people to turn against Bush, Greenberg then said, with a chuckle: They don't want him to fail, I can't, I mean -- they think it matters that the president of the United States fails. So they -- the people in their focus groups did not want Bush to fail, but they turned around and ginned up -- or were prepared to gin up -- a bunch of research designed to convince the American people that Bush should fail and they did. You have to admit it.
However, minutes later, as news of the terror attacks reached the hotel conference room where all this was happening, Carville shouted to the media: Disregard everything we just said, disregard everything, these attacks change everything.
What'd they change it for, three weeks? What was it, three or four weeks? The Democrats: Bush isn't doing anything, Bush isn't responding. Three weeks and they were back on the case of Bush this and Bush that.
The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when Limbaugh recently said he wanted Obama to fail. Here's what I told Bill Sammon in the piece, I said the difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country. I'm not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions such as Obama's socialist agenda that hurt my country. I deal in principles not polls. Carville, people like him, breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them; it's not a game to me. I'm concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party? That's what I told Bill Sammon. That's in the story. We've gotta take another obscene profit time out, thank you. Back after this.
















No, he wants socialism to fail.
Having lived in Germany a year, I think sociaism is great. Just today another study came out showing that while US pays more for health care, they get less in return than countries that practiced socialism. So much for free market fundamentaism. The report is "from the Business Roundtable, which represents CEOs of major companies..."
link
Unfortunately, Obama is not a socialist at all. He is a centrist. He oppointed two members to his cabinet, Paul Volker and Larry Summer, who were part of the school of neo-liberalist economic theory which put the country where it is right now
No, he wants an agenda that was fully approved of by the american voting public to fail, which in essence means he wants democracy to fail.
my oh my that twisted loonie logic...if it is red and a truck it must be a fire engine!!! His higness' agenda was not "fully approved" - first only about half of the eligible voters actually voted and second of those only 52% supported what they thought BHO stood for. So do I take that roughly 26% of the adult population is FULL support by the American people? Not in my book.
If you read the article and actually take Limbo's own words he believes, rightly or wrongly (in the eyes of the listener), that BHO wants democracy to fail and that is why he is against BHO's policies. I don't agree with Rush on many things but let's call it as it is and not make things up.
It was a landslide, both electorally and popular. Sorry to burst your bubble. But if you don't like the fact that only half of the country voted (which was in itself a significant increase over past elections) then perhaps you should stop supporting policies that are designed to supress voter turnout. My, how twisted is that - complaining about turnout while you are supressing it?
And BO wants democracy to fail? Talk about making things up.
>>my oh my that twisted loonie logic...if it is red and a truck it must be a fire engine!!! His higness' agenda was not "fully approved" - first only about half of the eligible voters actually voted and second of those only 52% supported what they thought BHO stood for.
That's not very logical at all. By those standards, Bush or any other president didn't have his agenda approved, either. Second, you have no idea about the second claim, but are just making things up.
Funny, isn't it? after several weeks of saying he hopes Obama fails, rush suddenly tosses out one of those hindsight is 20/20 defenses and the right buys it hook, line and sinker as proof that rush only was thinking about the good of the country when he said that. Only a sucker (or a dittohead) would buy that.
First, Obama was not a king. He was elected both popularly, and by electoral college. A vast majority (over 60 percent last numbers I saw) approve of what OBama is doing with the economy, and his overall job approval. If that's not fully approved, I'm not really sure what would be.
As Snoopy stated, the voter turnout in the US during this election was one of the largest turnouts seen in a very long time. Number wise, and percentage wise. We could always repeat the old carrot of, if you didn't vote, you don't get to complain, but I never believed that. If you're an American citizen, complain all that you want.
Actually, as I mentioned above, over 60% of the American population, not just voters, approve of Obama and what he is doing, or has done thus far in his job.
What has Obama done that makes you think he wants democracy to fail? Think hard about that question, because last I knew, he hadn't put into effect any policies, or pushed for any laws that would take away our rights, or our ability to elect and vote for officials. Not like the last President (Bush) did during his 2 terms (illegal wiretapping anyone?).
That's the problem with you guys. You say that you're just calling it like you see it, which may or may not be the truth, but it would be nice if you based your opinions on what is actually happening, or, maybe a few facts here and there.
well if 26 percent of the population didn't vote id say that means they dont care as long as everything gets better.
it was hardly fully approved, but it was fooly approved.
Fully. The fools are in the minority, as usual...
Only if you knew what socialism actually is would you be qualified to talk about it. Seeing how you use the word ensures that you are ignorant of it means.
enlighten us oh great one.....define it for us.
let me take a crack at it. Socialism erodes, infringes and stifles personal liberty and freedoms. it doesn't believe that people be rewarded or get ahead through hard work and sweat, that any wealth they accumulate or earn is really not owned by them, but should be redistributed to level the playing field, to take from one and give to another. all is concentrated on the group as a whole, the individual is always secondary to that. I don't believe even Obama is in favor or this for our country, it is not what we were founded on, nor how we have become the greatest nation on earth. thankfully.
Any ideas on why so many talking heads, from both the rightwing and "liberal" media say he is? Are they playing a little joke on people like Mark, Wordly, and Tbone?
it's a catchy buzzword that gins up attention and controversy.
And the anti-Obama, anti-liberal, anti-Democratic sentiment that so many of our conservative friends thrive on.
Excellent characature of socialism. Our national socialistic roots predate the term.
i never said that we don't have some elements of it in our society, many of our social programs flirt with it, no doubt. But we must reward entrepreneurship and individual success, not punish it. we are not a pure democracy or a republic, but we are not the overtaxed european model by any stretch, as I said, thankfully.
>>but we are not the overtaxed european model by any stretch, as I said, thankfully.
See my link above. We pay more for health care, but get less than the Europeans. In other words, the European model works better.
We DO reward entrepreneurship and individual success. We keep hearing from our talking head friends that Obama is in class warfare, which with a rational analysis of what he wants to do taxwise, is just not true.
But I don't expect them to actually learn about what he wants to do. It's just easy to yell socialist.
The funny thing is that when the United States was at is best both economicly and moraly we had a top tax rate of both 70% and 90% on over a million dollars a year and it worked. We are the western nation with the least chace of moving up in our ecinomic class right now and before Regan we were the country with the best chance. Think about that.
hey james.....we have rewarded it and look where it got us. its fine to reward success....but do you really thing that someone is going to restrain themselves from lying just tio make a profit? that they are going to have a sudden spark of patriotism and say "this is going to damage the country, we should stop" no they wont. companies that make billions only care about making billions any way they can and will do anything even illegal things to keep the money coming.
Socialism does not infringe on, our stifle personal liberty and freedoms. For example, go to Sweden. A free and open society, that is also socialist. They don't lack for personal freedoms at all.
Socialism does not believe that people can't earn wealth, and or be wealthy. Again, look at countries that are socialist like, or are socialistic, plenty of rich people who have earned what they've gotten. In the case of the new tax code being proposed by Obama, the top 2 percent of earners in this country would see an increase of about 2 percent on their taxes, and or, this means, not much money. This isn't just handed out to other people, folks like myself get to take home more money that we earned through a slightly lower tax rate for those of us making less than 250 thousand.
Wouldn't it be a lot better country if more people were closer to one another in terms of living conditions? I mean, if we didn't have a large segment of our population that wasn't poor and living in 3rd world conditions within our own borders? I'm pretty sure that our country would be even better, even stronger in that case.
We already have many socialist type programs incorporated into our country. I always have to laugh at people who say they don't need the government doing anything for them, when in fact, we all benefit from things our local, state and federal governments do every single day.
Wouldn't it be a lot better country if more people were closer to one another in terms of living conditions? I mean, if we didn't have a large segment of our population that wasn't poor and living in 3rd world conditions within our own borders? I'm pretty sure that our country would be even better, even stronger in that case.
No it would not. It ultimately stifles initiaitive and drive and while it might make sense for a country the size of Illinois and has a population density of 20 people per square killometer it will not work in a country roughly 30 times bigger in population. The Social Democrats have had a little trouble keeping power there now haven't they? I guess it didn't have anything to do with the amount of WELFARE they were paying out during an ecenomic downturn?
Please show me anywhere in america where we are approaching a 3rd world country living conditions. When you hit some real third world areas and can honestly compare the two then we'll talk.
Here's a simple little thing to remember - when the poor get richer, the rich get richer and everyone's happy.
When the poor get poorer, the rich are still rich and no one is happy.
Got it? Good!
Go to any Indian reservation and look at the conditions there; they are just as bad as the third world.
I drive through a reservation in my neck of the woods a few times a year and it looks just like the rest of america. If the rez near your house is 3W then it's their own fault.
Last time I checked they dont have to stay there.
>>let me take a crack at it. Socialism erodes, infringes and stifles personal liberty and freedoms. it doesn't believe that people be rewarded or get ahead through hard work and sweat, that any wealth they accumulate or earn is really not owned by them,
Oh good grief! Then why do Western Europeans enjoy a higher standard of living than we do? Whenever anybody says "we were founded on," you should run for cover. It is an Orwellian term that has no meaning. And the greatest nation on earth? I think not.
Also the countries at the top of the list of happy counteries are all more socialist that the US.
If we're not the greatest then who is? As far as immigrants are concerned we are. That pretty much sums it up don't ya think?
US still tops for immigrants
Oh, knock off the obsession over which country is the 'greatest'. That is so ridiculous. Do you honestly think the majority of people in this country give a damn about 'greatness'?
Good God... we've got many serious issues going on here and you are worried about how 'great' the US is. Talk about priorities.
To the righties, the world is like a big football game.
Yeah, and guess who is losing the game. Even Chuck-You Norris can't save their asses.
You are wrong socialism has nothing to do with rights and freedom. Here is a definiton from an economics text book of each of the three econimic systems.
Communism is a socity in which the people regaurdless to class, own all the nation's resources.
Socialism an economic system in which the government own and opperates basic industries -postal service, telephone, utilities, transportation, health care, banking and some manufacturing -but individuals own most businesses.
Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals own and operate the majority of businesses that provide goods and sevices.
No country on Earth is 100% any of these three. The most succesful countries are a blend of Socialism and Capitalism. I think the ideal blend is arround 65 to 75% Capitalism and the rest Socialism. Also this would be in line with the Constitution and its saying provide for the general wealfare.
An intelligent and FACTUAL post but do not expect the brainwashed wingers to actually buy it. They are way past being gone intellectually.
Well said Progressiveright...could you have a Democracy and not have some elements of Socialism? We need to stop labeling everything in over-used terms like Socialism,Communism,Fascism with out context.These labels are different depending on the country and point in history. It would be more productive if we discussed facts and judged merits of positions/policies rather than throw out labels to scare uninformed people!! How can returning to tax rates from the 90's be so disastrous and somehow all of a sudden "Socialist"?
FAIL.
so why are you opening your mouth....
"Socialism erodes, infringes and stifles personal liberty and freedoms." - jamesB
With that comment above, jamesB, you've proven that you haven't the first clue as to what socialism truly is.
(1) Socialism is an economic system (some might even call it economic rationalization). Economic systems don't "erode, infringe or stifle personal liberties and freedom."
(2) At the very core of socialism are individual freedoms and equality for ALL people, not just those who have the most money - or those who are able to steal the most money from others. Socialism is based upon equality.
You know, jamesB, picking up a book now and again might help - or at least do some research before spouting off your bs.
you've proven that you haven't the first clue...
Lil' Jimmyb needs to get out of his mom's basement more often. And then he might, just might have a clue about how the world operates.
Socialism is an economic system that is different from capitalism.
When Obama is done we'll still have capitalism, so he must not be doing socialism.
Exactly.
Socialism just sounds like "communism" which is what these guys are trying to do. Scare America into believing that we now have a radical left wing Muslim communist in the Oval Office (funny, none of those things even really belong together, but I digress). They're still running the old game plan of if they say something long enough, and enough times, well, everyone will believe it. Some do, but luckily, I think most are hip to their game of BS.
You might know, ML that the public education system since the '50's has been conflating socialism and communism. The differences aren't well taught in schools - and teachers with political ideologies, especially right-wing nutjobs who unfortunately teach our children, inject their personal beliefs into what they teach, teaching their students that socialism and communism are the bogey-men. Many people (my family included) believe(d) that socialism and communism were the same thing, just a different label.
Education benefits us all - when we're properly taught.
Anyone with an education can see that Obama isn't anywhere near pushing socialism. He's not called for the nationalization of all means of production and distribution of said production, which would be the kicker. Without that nationalization and distribution controls, you can't have true socialism. The U.S. and it's capitalistic nature would never allow such a thing to happen (and I'm OK with that, even though I believe democratic socialism is the best way to go - it's not for ME to decide!).
crayon,
Please read this before the 'moderators' find this offensive...
What's wrong with being a socialist for goodness sakes. Embrace the truth President Obama, be proud that you are a socialist!!!
This is from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America newsletter called New Ground,
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932
Chicago New Party Update
by Bruce Bentley
About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.
The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.
(I added the emphasis. Here's a link to the archives of the Democratic Socialist's newsletter......)
Check out the link below and see what our president stood for and who he stood shouder to shoulder.
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/index.html
Here is the mission statement of the Democratic Socialist's party of which President Obama has held membership:
He has been and is governing as a socialist. Be proud!
x's & o's from pc
>>Embrace the truth President Obama, be proud that you are a socialist!!!
Again, Obama is not a socialist. I don't know what you think your link is showing.
somethingfunnyinyourpants,
Did not even look at the facts posted above? He was a member in good standing with the Democratic Socialist Party! How thick can you be?
He's a socialist only in your definition. I guess then that me and 60% of the public are as well.
My job then, is to make certain that you and the other '60%' understand the danger of a socialist as a president.
x's & o's pc
Are you trying to actually make a point, or are you deliberately mocking people who don't understand what socialism is and pretend Obama is socialist? I can't tell. Your link and post don't prove anything at all.
I'm not sure that your article says what you think it says.
According to what you copied, Obama was a part of an entourage, not a member. Nowhere in your article does it state that Obama is or ever was a member (as much as I wish he were a member!).
What is it with you Cons and your inability to read? Why is it that you have such comprehension issues? And how the hell do make such leaps? Just because Obama was somehow a member of an entourage, you make him out to be a member. Not the same, not even close.
That's like saying that I am a member of the Catholic Church because I went to mass with a friend a few times. Again, not the same, not even close.
Nice try, though!
"Just because Obama was somehow a member of an entourage, you make him out to be a member."
Sorry. That was supposed to say:
Just because Obama was somehow a member of an entourage, you make him out to be a member of the DSA.
Thank you!
nosuchkindofpoliticalpersonpossible,
Here's how the dots connect:
The New Party was an offshoot of the Chicago Democratic Socialist of America Party. The New Party attempted to make votes for their candidates count in democrat primaries.
Next dot:
The New Party gathering that President Obama was part of the entourage was "The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates."
Third dot:
How in the world could someone believe Obama belonged to an offshoot of the DSA? Here's how
Fourth dot:
You are correct that just by going to a Catholic church, you are not necessarily Catholic yourself. But if you in deep enough to be baptized (be approved via a NP political committee), take communion(candidates must sign a contract with the NP) and expose the tenents of the faith (The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.), that pretty much makes you Catholic.
Your connect the dot drawings in grade school must have been seriously screwed up.
Your dots don't connect enough to make Obama a member of the DSA.
If he were a member of the DSA, don't you think that the right-wing would have made as much political hay out of it as they could - during the freakin' election?!?
Face it, your "theory" is a stretch - one which even taffy couldn't live up to. No one believes that drivel - except you and the other wingnuts who simply cannot come to terms with the fact that your ideology, an ideology which holds hostage your mind and your heart, has failed. It has been proven to you, in action, not in theory, whether you want to believe it or not, that conservatism is a failed ideology. The worst part of it is, you're too bone-headed/pig-headed to come to terms with it.
The mainstream media, the Obama tankers, never wanted to look at these aspects of Obama's past. Compare the interest in finding 'something' in Bush's National Guard service by the mainstream media, remember Dan Rather's obsession, to how the media looked into Obama's background. The only ones talking about this were the talk radio guys, you know, the ones that the left would love to silence, unfairness and all.
Fact is the left and media supplicants were quite fine with this, Bill Ayers and the Rev. Wright stuff. Some of which only came to light because of talk radio. Of course the media said the links were weak or just in the past, he repudiated them you know. He's been their guy!
I think the left is terrified of people seeing and understanding this stuff and Obama has made it clear that any of the socialism stuff is verbotten, ie the chastizing of NYT reports last week. If people see and understand that this is more than just 'hope', in fact, it is changing the founding principles of this country.
The connection is there, he sought out the support of people he was comfortable with, their ideals, goals and aspirations. He had to sign a contract that said he would have a visible and active relationship with the New Party, an extension of the Democratic Socialists of America Party.
As far as conservatism versus socialism, conservatism never starved millions in the Ukraine, tortured its citzens in Cambodia, imprisoned dissenters in Cuba, destroyed the country of Zimbabwai or is threatening the freedoms of Venezualian citizens. Conservatism in prinicple and application has raised up it citizenry, strengthened our economic foundations and has allowed this country to be a uniquely special and blessed country that had been the envy of the whole world.
The man's been quite clear, dude. He wan't OBAMA to fail. He wants him to fail because any other outcome would expose his philosphy as empty and dead, and reglegate his party to long-term minority status. (Or it would fundamentaly change the party in a way that he would find unpalatable in order to survive.) And he doesn't care what happens to America. He'd rather have the country in ruin that to see liberalism (or common sense as the eductaed among us call it) succeed.
"Socialism" is a nonsense term that you ditto heads keep throwing out there to confuse the ignorant. But it's not working. You've been exposed as liars, incepetnats and frauds. And the people have spoken.
And Michael Steel is the gift that keeps on giving! Between him and Sarah Palin, you guys can't even get tokenism right! I don't who I wish MORE SUCCESS to... Steele, Palin or John Boehner - the best Republican Minority Leader EVER. I love it. You guys are in ruin and America is finally starting to show the smallest signs of revcoery.
Get ready for two more electoral blood-baths. It's LIMBAUGH who's failed.
If socialism is embodied in the policies of the president, he should fail! Look at his history of connections with the DSA noted above. That is what he is at the core.
Whether your call it socialism or liberalism or Woodrow Wilson progressivism, it's all the same, destructive to the founding principles of this country.
destructive to the founding principles of this country.
Prove it. (Bet you can't)
isayboyisayboylookieherah & lackingsense,
Let's see which is closer and therby less destructive of founding principles:
America Socialism Conservatism
Limited govt Expanding govt Limited government intrusion
Individual rights Group rights from gov Indiv. rights present apriori government
personal freedom govt controls on expression freedom to speak, gather, act individually
pursuit of happiness Equality of outcomes shared Equality in opportunity, outcome on effort,merit
govmnt est by citizens An experiment that failed Not a failed experi., a uniquely special land
I think that a government that sees bureacracy as better suited to governence than its people, is one that is destructive to founding principles. From our health care, choices of education, how to run businesses or manage our life to squelching free exercise of individual enterprise, the change I see in government over the years is frightening. Both dems and republicans have taken us down this path. Rather than cheer the president on, I hope he sees the light and reverses course. Then conservatives will stop talking failure in a president's policies.
Actually, Conservatism is what is destructive to this country. Not only is it destructive to the founding principles of this nation (witness: warrantless wire-tapping, suspension of habeas corpus), but it's also destructive to the economy (look around, it's conservative principles which caused this whole economic meltdown we're experiencing).
wrong again "meatbag"-HK-47
he wants obama to fail.
Can you even define socialism?
Let's assume that the US is becoming more socialist reflected in the european model. Then you have to take the good with the bad. It is high time that there is MANDATORY military service. Grades 13 & 14. I've noticed the left has convieniently left this out of "their vision" of how america would achieve the move to a more socialist state. Rangle has been the only one to actively call for this as far as I know.
Barry O didn't even address this when he brought up his volunteer plan. What better way to get people to add to the ranks of our true volunteer military and help with the workload? Now that the administration is contemplating placing troops on our southern border he'll need all the NG units he can muster.
Barry O mulls militarization of US/Mex border
The question now will be, will the ACLU "investigate" the Obama admin if he decides to deploy the Norther Brigade?
ACLU files suit over Northern Brigade
>>Then you have to take the good with the bad.
Why?
Awesome comment, funnymanpants! Sums up your side quite nicely.
Conservative/Libertarian: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Liberal: "Where's my free lunch?"
Funny thing is, for months and years when democrats would criticize Bush policies, right wingers would ask the rhetorical question of, "Well, what's your plan then?" Then democratic leaders would lay out the plans that they had for whatever issue it was we were talking about, and then would totally be ignored by the republican majority as said idea being "out of touch" or not tenable, or something like that.
These days, when we hear republicans complain, we ask what their ideas are. What do we get in return? We need more tax cuts. That's about it these days coming from the republican party, and it is laughable.
Obama has stated that some sort of volunteer service would be a nice thing to have, service to your country in some form or capacity, doesn't matter what. Thing is, some folks wouldn't want to serve in the military, and in a free and open society, that would be fine.
The ACLU doesn't "investigate" things, they file lawsuits against actions, or groups, or laws that are not in line with the Constitution of the United States, or more specifically, the Bill of Rights.
With the deployment of the Northern Brigade noted above in Tbone's posting, a FOIA was requested by the ACLU to see if US military forces were deployed within the US, and if they were, this is highly illegal without the suspension of posse comitatus that allows for regular armed forces to act as a police force within the borders of the United States. If PC was revoked, then there is nothing to worry about. If PC is not taken back during a time of military deployment within the borders of our country, that's illegal, and whoever did it, should be held accountable for doing it, in this case, the President of the US.
If Obama deploys US military forces within the borders of the US, then I would expect posse comitatus to be lifted first, and if it isn't, I would suspect that thhe ACLU would be all over him for it, along with other groups and organizations, as required.
I guess you could draw that conclusion. He did state that some kind of national service along with state and county. The confusing part is when you actually read the details of his plan (the devil is always in the details) it becomes glaringly clear that there really is NO PLAN, just some flowery retoric that sounds good in a campaign and for sound bites, but is never really (wink wink nod nod) meant to be implemented.
After the bullet statements in the header of his plan (which has many half truths and falsehoods BTW) the first pont of order is to EXPAND to Meet Military Needs on the Ground. This would be the perfect time to lay out some sort of plan for mandatory military service. Alas, nothing is there. He says he plans to increase the Army and Marines, but doesn't tell us how?
My advice and I assume yours as you alluded to a european style model, would be age 19, mandatory two years, reserve until age 45. The Swede's run theirs out to 47, but I think that's too old!
Think of all those newly minted soldiers and marines ready to serve Obama! That Berkely grad going in as a young lieutenant instead of going to DC as a left wing lobbyist! Oh we can only dream!
Swedish military commitments
>>Awesome comment, funnymanpants! Sums up your side quite nicely.
Your comment makes no sense. I was referring to why we have to implement mandatory military service. There is no reason to. Oh, by the way, the quote about free lunch comes from Milton Friedman, one of the biggest propenents of market fundamentaism. In case you haven't noticed, market fundamentalism is dead.
Ah yes, I love Mr. Get out of the Basement's comment, considering that they are the party of bumper sticker ideas.
Support The Troops.
Bore / Losermann
W - The President
And other things like that.
If Obama were to implement compulsory military service then there would be an exodus of wingers heading for the exits. Yeah, that's right, the people who scream the loudest about 'supporting the troops' blah blah are the same people who will do ANYTHING to get out of actually doing it. Their idea of 'support' amounts to nothing more than slapping a Made in China ribbon on their SUVs. A bunch on wimpy armchair warriors indeed.
Still... it would be a great way to take back the country from the Rushed and Insannitized right.
funny thing about compulsory military service. The roman Republic had such a system from the time of 509 BC until about 100 BC.
seems that the Romans felt that not only was it good for them, but it was patriotic. more often than not when Legions were being enrolled in the Forum. they would get nearly the entir epopulation of the city and would select from lists of those who would be enrolled.
now a a legion usually had somehwere around 5500 men. Two legions from the city would be enrolled. so there is 11000 men. the male eligible population around that time was somewhere in the neighborhood of about 100,000. and about that number would show up for enrollment.
Everywhere in the world that has fallowed Milton Friedman's modle has destroyed its economy and killed a large percentage of its population. These countries have not yet recovered look at Chile in the 1970's as a prime example.
That was to support you not attack you.
heaven forbid that Milton Friedman have an unfallowed modle.
Let's assume
Let's not. Then we don't have to bother with your straw-man.
Have you ever thought that maybe the Left has "conveniently left this out of 'their vision' of how America would achieve the more to a more socialist state" because the Left isn't pushing for socialism?
Just a thought. Give it a chance.
And being a volunteer and/or instituting compulsory military service does not a socialist country make. See: Turkey and Israel (I believe both have compulsory miltiary service). Neither are socialist countries.
As far as the Rush/Mardi Gras James controversy, I like how MMfA doesn't even question Mardi Gras Jim and his cohort Stanley Greenberg's motives on what they were going to do with their polling data had not 9/11 happened.
I guess they were just doing this for "entertainment" purposes!
Mardi Gras James
If MMFA ever changes their mission statement from "conservative misinformation" to "misinformation" rest assured you will read about it. What you should really be upset about is the fact that fox news and the rest of the conservative media dropped the ball with that one. They could have milked that like a cow in heat for eight years running and instead let it slip between the cracks. Maybe they shouldn't have outsourced their journalism?
Exactly.
Apparently Tbone and others are "mad" that MMFA doesn't expose all misinformation, when their mission statement explicitly states, conservative misinformation and other conservative lies and innuendo, and other BS.
Tbone, stop calling people stupid names, it just makes you look ignorant. Calling Carville "Mardi Gras James" makes you look about as smart as Mark Levin, and let me let you in on a little secret, nobody thinks it's funny or sharp when you make up little nicknames for everyone. That, and it's just annoying.
Carville said that he hopes that Bush doesn't succeed, and guess what? He was just as wrong as Limbaugh is now. I've heard recently Limbaugh try to spin his statements such as, I hope Obama fails, but I want to country to prosper and succeed, and him repeating that the country isn't just one man. In this case, he is correct, but one man does lead our country, and if he succeeds, the country will as well. If our President fails at his job, history has shown that the country suffers as well (just look at our last President).
Not "mad" at all Mag, just showing the hypocrisy that is on review here daily. Dems were subverting the Bush administration from day one. Heck most didn't even recognize the results of the '00 elction, so why would they support any of his policies?
The just sprung story of the Ragin Cajun and his sidekick (8 years too late) proves this. I can only imagine what else we DON'T know....
Since mag brought up Levin, I'm curious as to whether or not you wish to address the issue of 'hypocrisy' when it comes to Levin and David Frum and their little dustup over Rush.
Dems were subverting the Bush administration from day one
How? (This oughta be good).
why would they support any of his policies?
Instead we had them rammed down our throats. (p.s., in case you forgot, many dems voted to give Bush the authority to wage war. Forgot about that one, didn't ya?)
Sorry snoop but the media as a whole failed us. Why did they give King of Crue James the political cover? Can you honestly say that had the roles been reversed and Rove said this the media would have knocked the 9/11 attacks off the front pages? (Ok, maybe a little over the top, but you get my gist..)
So what's the problem with Carville? There is none.
I do have a problem with him saying that he hoped that Bush doesn't succeed. I mean, that's pretty much un called for. But that might just be me.
i would commend you for your consistency.
Thank you, thank you very much.
I have to agree with Funnyman on this one as well. Rush is free to spout his nonsense, and did we really expect anything else from him?
Wasn't Rush one of the people saying that if you do not support the President in a time of war you are committing treason or words to that effect. If so by his own accord he is committing treason.
I think it was Hillary in an April '03 speech that said it best:
Did Hillary want Bush's policies to fail? I'm guessing if she were calling for debate then she didn't.
Calling for a debate of the administration's policies isn't the same as hoping Bush's policies (or Bush himself) fails. It's quite simply a call to discussion of the policies.
Rush, on the other hand, came right out and aired his hope that Obama would fail.
See the difference?
you are so off base. the democrat party fought bush all the way, every day. harry reid declared the surge had failed before it started, and that the war was lost. how's that for cheerleading?
Your post is an absolute lie as in there is no 'democrat' party unless a third party in Congress somehow magically appeared out of nowhere.
and that the war was lost...
We won the war but lost the occupation. Just ask the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. Don't be surprised if they don't answer.
I have a problem with attacking Rush for wanting Obama to fail. We don't live in a monarchy, so he is free to criticize the president. Whether or not wanting the president to fail is legitimate criiticism or not is a tough question. As for the rest of rhetoric that moron spouts, that is another matter.
He and others like him attacked me and those like me for disagreeing with Bush and said we were unAmericain and or committing treason. He and the others who did this opened the dore and we are coming through in stride.
I'm tending towards fmp and mag's position. I'd also like to see mmfa's info become more visible to mainstreet america. There's plenty of heat to throw at Dipswitch and his happy band of parasites, and good reason to do so.
I check my mindless agression at the door.