I realize that you may be loading a blank page when you try to access the site. I haven’t a clue as to what is going on which is why I have the folks at Hosting Matters looking into it. They think it may be related to a plug in.
Sorry for the inconvenience. My traffic was a third of what it should have been yesterday so I’m sure most of you failed to get through. I hope to be back to normal sometime this morning.
You won’t want to miss tonight’s Rick Moran Show, one of the most popular conservative talk shows on Blog Talk Radio.
Tonight, I welcome James Joyner of The Atlantic Council (and Outside the Beltway) for a discussion of Obama’s foreign policy.
The show will air from 7:00 - 8:00 PM Central time. You can access the live stream here. A podcast will be available for streaming or download shortly after the end of the broadcast.
Click on the stream below and join in on what one wag called a “Wayne’s World for adults.”
The Chat Room will open around 15 minutes before the show opens,
Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.
I have reluctantly decided to end my attempts to summarize each episode of 24 this year.
There are several reasons for this but chief among them is lack of time. With two jobs on the internet and my own site to write for, the summaries were getting squeezed into whatever time was left over - which turned out to be not too damned much.
The quality and timeliness of the summaries were not up to my standards either. Not being able to spend the time thoroughly reviewing each episode meant that I was forced to fall back on the hack summaries at the Fox website. And the writing was definitely sub-par - something of an embarrassment when I re-read the few summaries I was able to get on the site.
When I started these summaries 4 years ago, there may have been two or three other bloggers who were posting on 24 and no one was writing about the episodes with (depending on your point of view) either the manic obsessiveness or attention to detail that I was. Now there are literally dozens of writers who, with varying degrees of detail and snark, fill the reader in on what happened the previous evening.
Looking back, I am proud of the effort I made to not only try and entertain but put the show in the context of modern politics, literary history (as in describing characters and plot devices used by dramatists going back to the Greeks), and the War on Terror while placing Jack Bauer in the pantheon of American heroes and following the development of his character.
But it hit me last night with the death of Bill Buchanan on the show. Despite what I believe is a revival of the series’ excellence, 24 is, to some extent, a dated enterprise. The crew we have in the White House now will no doubt continue our counterterrorism activities. But one gets the sense that the kind of war Jack Bauer is fighting every Monday night just doesn’t exist anymore. The War on Terror - and Jack Bauer - are anachronisms now, taking second place to an economy that continues to decline at a frightening pace. The villains Jack battles now are homegrown - evil capitalists, corrupt bureaucrats, and narrow minded lawmakers who have the audacity to question his methods after he has saved the United States countless times. The true enemy - Islamic extremism - is never mentioned. It doesn’t exist in Jack’s world anymore. It makes Jack’s “counterterrorism” efforts a surreal exercise in studied ignorance - the same mindset that strip searches little old ladies at airports while allowing a Syrian band to carry out “dry runs” testing our airline security and then letting them go.
I will continue to write about Bauer from time to time. It would be hard for me not to since I think sometimes Jack is my alter ego as I have written about him so much. But from here on out, I will be watching the show for pure enjoyment - a not unpleasant task given the fact that despite a ridiculously made up enemy, the series once again has us on the edge of our seats and has regained the ability to deliver hammer blows to our hearts, shocking us with plot twists and killing off regulars as few shows have ever done.
Thanks to all for reading these summaries. If you came to this site because of them, I hope you stick around for the other stuff.
I’ve said this before and will say it again because it needs to be repeated right about now.
This country is in a helluva mess and Barack Obama is the only president we’ve got. He is “it.” By virtue of a free and fair election, he has been chosen by the American people to lead us in this crisis. We have placed upon his shoulders the responsibility to lead us out of this financial morass in which we find ourselves. He deserves all the support we can, in good conscience, give him.
And that’s the trouble, isn’t it? President Obama has proposed policies that are such an anathema to conservatives that most of us find it impossible - within the boundaries of our principles and conscience - to do other than oppose him as he seeks to remake America into something it has never been, and indeed, cannot be and still remain an America we would recognize.
Wanting Obama to “fail” in this pursuit is very tricky. I would compare it to the left wanting Bush to “fail” in winning the Iraq War. Of course, they would never admit it but in reality, that is what they were advocating. Are they going to try and convince us that they wanted Bush’s war policies to “fail” but they wanted the US to win in Iraq? That’s even too convoluted for a liberal. I grant them their sincerity in opposing the president’s policies in Iraq but is there any other way to look at it except liberals wanted the US to fail? And if there is another way to see it, why not give conservatives the benefit of the doubt in opposing Obama’s economic policies?
The left will say there is no comparison but that’s about as disingenuous as you can be. There are only two outcomes to a war; winning or losing. Opposing policies and hoping for an American pullout leading directly to defeat is no different than conservatives working to block Obama’s programs with the end result being an economic meltdown. And positing the notion that the war was “already lost” and that advocating a pullout in 2004 was only bowing to the inevitable is similar to conservatives saying that Obama’s policies are doomed to failure anyway so why not oppose them?
Neither was the left keen on having Bush economic policies succeed. Again, let us grant them the sincerity of their beliefs that Bush’s policies were bad for the country. But wouldn’t it be fair to say that by hoping for failure, they were, in fact, wishing for a recession?
We are not vouchsafed the sincerity of our beliefs by the left despite our willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt that what Obama is proposing, they truly believe to be in the national interest. So be it. Politics is politics and even in a crisis - perhaps especially in a crisis - competing ideas are routinely portrayed by the opposition in the worst possible light.
But “failure” of Obama’s policies in this case would be as devastating as America losing the Iraq War during Bush’s tenure. The question, then, whether this kind of opposition is responsible or necessary is a good one and is not easy to answer. At bottom, we are dealing with the most deeply held beliefs of the opposition. Asking them to toss basic principles in favor of some mindless “unity” or “patriotism” is asking your opponent to roll over and die in the face of something they cannot countenance.
A higher calling, then, than principle? That’s a hard argument to make in matters of war or what conservatives sincerely believe is the disappearance of fundamental building blocks that make America what she has been in the past.
So you can’t dump principles nor can you go along with the president even in a crisis such as war or threatened economic Armageddon. You can’t nuance your opposition to hope the president’s policies fail but that everything turns out alright anyway. That would be a stretch and hence, insincere.
You are left with the only viable construct; you oppose the president because you wish him to fail and accept the consequences that your opposition is tantamount to working to bring economic ruin upon the country (or in the case of war, America’s defeat). All the rest of this nattering is pure sophistry, splitting hairs, and searching for justification by going through the manure pile, convinced that there’s a pony in there somewhere.
And this brings us back to square one. What is the opposition supposed to do when a president’s actions in a crisis are considered so far beyond the pale that they cannot be supported in good conscience and without abandoning one’s fundamental principles? Conservatives have answered that question by saying we believe that economic meltdown is a lesser evil than Obama’s remaking America into something it has never been before and cannot be if it is to remain the same country we have been entrusted to hand down to our children just as it was handed down to us going back to its founding.
This will no doubt discomfit even some conservatives who aren’t prepared to accept the consequences of their opposition or take the reality of their position to its logical conclusion. We will also no doubt suffer politically for opposing the president. This is the way of the world and should be an accepted consequence of standing on principle rather than bending to the political winds.
It is a forlorn hope to expect the liberals to grant us the sincerity of our beliefs in this matter just as it was impossible for conservatives to give the left the benefit of the doubt in their opposition to the Iraq War. Perhaps at another time in history, it would have been possible to see beyond the poisonous partisan struggles and grant the tiniest bit of respect to one’s opponent - a tip of the cap, a nod of the head that would show that despite our differences, we are still all in this together and that finding a way back after all is said and done will be the goal of both sides.
But it won’t happen. It’s much to easy to score cheap political points when your opponent bares his chest and invites the point of your sword.
Did you feel it? The political ground shifting beneath President Barack Obama since his speech last week to Congress? It’s been downhill since and I’m not referring mainly to the Dow Jones record-setting dive. The pivot point of the shift was the speech, or rather what the speech did to the evolving public narrative of Obama.
The case Mr. Tapscott tries to make seems a little forced to me - at this point. Here are a few of his bullets:
1. Increased audiences for Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
2. Some Democrats in Congress bailing on the omnibus spending package and the tax increases in Obama’s budget.
3. A coherent conservative critique appears to be emerging. As evidence, Tapscott points to two excellent articles this week that provide plenty of logical conservative ammunition to critics.
Paralleling these developments, a potentially devastatng conservative case against Obama is coming together rapidly. Two influential columns this week tell the tale: On Thursday, Daniel Henninger offers this crucial observation in a WSJ piece otherwise devoted to asking why Republicans aren’t more eagerly and quickly taking advantage of the fact the Obama Democrats have all but declared war on the 75 percent of the U.S. economy that is private and therefore productive of the nation’s wealth:
“Beyond the stock market, there is a reason why, despite much goodwill toward his presidency, the Obama response to the faltering economy has left many feeling undone. There isn’t much in his plan to stir the national soul. It’s about ’sacrifice’ now so that we can live for a future of small electric cars and windmills. This may move the Democratic Party’s faith communities, but it cannot revive a great nation. If the Democrats want to embrace market failure as a basis for their ideology, let them have it. As politics, it’s a downer.”
The second column appeared today in The Washington Post and was written by Charles Krauthammer. Obama’s mastery of public speaking has heretofore served to deflect attention away from the details of what he is actually proposing. And there is in those details, according to Krauthammer, a fundamental deception: Obama summons visions of catastrophe that are the result of too little government regulation of the financial markets and he offers as a solution vastly more government regulation of …. health care, energy and education.
“The ‘day of reckoning’ has now arrived. And because ‘it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament,’ Obama has come to redeem us with his far-seeing program of universal, heavily nationalized health care; a cap-and-trade tax on energy; and a major federalization of education with universal access to college as the goal.
“Amazing. As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people,” Krauthammer said.
I think Mark is getting a little ahead of himself - as are many conservatives - who see the entire narrative, so carefully constructed over these many months by the media about Obama, suddenly shifting to reflect the realities of what the president is proposing as well as the myths surrounding his brilliance, his competence, and even his work ethic.
Wall Street is making its judgement as we speak. They cannot afford to listen to spin or engage in the kind of pretense about the Obama administration many Democrats are currently trying to foist upon us. They, like us, realize that the president’s personnel shop is in shambles, that his Treasury Secretary is the most spectacularly underperforming cabinet member in American history (given the fact that we were told the economic recovery depended on us ignoring the fact that he is a tax criminal and confirming him anyway), that there is no plan at all to deal with the banking crisis that worsens as you read this, that his foreign policy gaffes continue to make the United States look weak, indecisive, and ridiculous, and that in the midst of the worse economic crisis in a generation, the White House has chosen to waste time and effort to demonize a talk show host and try to paint his face on the Republican party.
We know all this. But the idea that these facts have altered or are even in the process of altering the fundamental narrative about Obama and his Administration is premature and borders on wishful thinking. As long as the Democrats can keep this a Republican economy, Obama will remain relatively unscathed. Defections from Democratic ranks on his budget will be few and given their huge majority in the House, insignificant. Even the declining stock market will be spun as sour grapes by the rich who don’t want to see their taxes raised.
Expectations on recovery are so low at this point that they will be able to spin any rise in job creation as occurring as a result of their porkulus package - even if, as most economists predict, the overall jobless rate will continue to climb. And as long as Republicans fail to offer anything remotely resembling an alternative to Obama’s ruinously transformative spending plans, the Democrats can paint the opposition to Obama as being obstructionist. (Adopting some of Newt Gingirich’s 12 points to recovery would be a nice start).
I think Tapscott is right about a consensus forming among the right regarding how to go about criticizing the president. Lord knows there’s enough ammo. The problem is getting by the major gatekeepers in the media who are still in a full blown Obama swoon. Some of the puff pieces on this guy and his family have been incredible. He buys his kids a new swingset and that rates cutsie article in AP. Some sex therapist writes on NBC’s website about the “5 Love Lessons” we can get from watching the Obama’s. No thanks, they appear much too demure for my tastes. As I have written previously, “I like my sports violent and my sex hot, sweaty, and loud.” The Obama’s strike me as a couple that would enjoy reading “The Kama Sutra” in the original Sanskrit or whatever while I prefer classic porn of the Debbie Does Dallas era.
Sorry, but in order to get beyond a narrative that holds up the first couple as idealized, perfect sex partners worthy of being imitated, we have some work to do. And I don’t think altering the narrative will happen in one “Eureka!” moment but rather a gradual chipping away at the myths, the lies, the spin, and the sleight of hand Democrats will use to distract people from the truly awful results that will occur when Obama’s policies come a cropper.
Unless I miss my guess, that day is coming sooner than the Democrats or Obama could possibly dream.
Alright, so shoot me.
As much as I enjoy 24 and the kick I get out of doing the summaries, this is the first year of writing about the show where I have two paying jobs that take precedence over anything I do on this site. And given the historic nature of what has been happening in this country since President Obama took office, I felt compelled to write about the misadventures of the Obama administration in lieu of doing the 24 roundups. I have time for one post a day on this site and Jack just had to take a back seat for the time being.
So I apologize to those of you who missed my summaries but I hope you understand that my priorities are set; job, politics, and Jack comes in last.
That said, I hope to do a better job in the future of getting these summaries up on Tuesday morning.
Now to recap the two shows I missed. I will have another, separate post to discuss the most recent 2 hour episode.
4:00 pm - 6:00 pm
After escaping from the firefight at his headquarters, Dubaku wants out of the country. But he wants to take Marika, his American girlfriend who doesn’t know that he’s a genocidal killer. He calls Ryan Burnett - who we later learn is chief of staff to Senator Mayer, Jack’s nemesis - who arranges a flight out of the country. Meeting Burnett at a hotel, Dubaku lets him know that if anything happens to him, he has a list of American traitors he will turn over to the authorities.
Jack follows the money and it tracks straight to Marika who is packing to leave with Dubaku. After some typical gentle persuasion from Jack - including showing Marika pictures of Dubaku’s handiwork - Marika agrees to meet Dubaku with Jack and Renee following her to insure her safety. Well, that didn’t work out so good. That’s because we discover that Sean Hillinger is the mole at the FBI and he issued a warrant for Jack’s arrest so that the DC police cut Jack and Renee off as they were following Marika.
Of course, Sean calls Burnett with the news that Marika has turned on Dubaku and Burnett calls the genocidal killer to give him the bad news. But Dubaku is one whipped puppy and when Marika shows up, he forgives her and asks her to come with him back to Sangala. The woman seems to agree and off they go to the airport.
Meanwhile, Jack has gotten Larry to call off the DC police but it’s way too late to track Marika, isn’t it? It would be except one should never underestimate the geek powers of Chloe. She uses an ATM camera to pinpoint where Dubaku’s car left with Marika and then used traffic cameras to get his location and direction. As Jack and Renee speed through traffic to rescue Marika, the brave girl takes matters into her own hands and causes an accident by grabbing the driver. Marika is killed and Dubaku is badly hurt.
Arriving on the scene, Jack interrupts the paramedics trying to save Dubaku’s life and forces them to bring him back to consciousness. After threatening the terrorist with the horrible things he would do to his family, Dubaku lets on that he’s got a list of American traitors. Before he can say anything else, Dubaku’s heart stops and they have to defib. But something is blocking the shock. It’s a memory stick embedded in Dubaku’s chest. Jack orders the paramedics to remove it which they reluctantly do before shocking the terrorist back to life. Jack sends the memory stick to Chloe who, of course, knows exactly what it is and exactly how to extract the information.
This is bad news for Sean and, it turns out, Erica who has been playing some slap and tickle with Sean after hours and who is also involved in the conspiracy. Sean convinces Erica to crash the servers and prevent Chloe from getting the names off the memory stick and they make their way to the server room where Erica works her inferior geek skills to carry out their plan. After a bad moment or two, she figures it out and is successful - she thinks. And in gratitude for her yeoman work in protecting their treason from being discovered, Sean gently kisses Erica and then gently shoots her dead.
Shooting himself in the arm, he hopes to cast suspicion on Erica alone as the mole. It works - until Sean discovers the truly awesome geek powers of Chloe who, as we all know, mirrors all her important stuff on an off site server. She recovers the files listing dozens of American traitors which convinces Sean to take a powder and go on the lam. He never makes it out of the building and is arrested.
President Taylor is informed by Jack of her husband’s rescue and the fact he is seriously wounded. She goes to the hospital and asks Bill to round up her estranged daughter. To do this, Bill tasks an old friend - Aaron Pierce - who with his typical professionalism picks up Olivia Taylor and takes her back to the White House. Bill interrupts to ask the president to get Senator Mayor to halt his investigation and let Jack go. She agrees to look into it.
As the FBI prepares to move in and arrest the American traitors, the president thanks Jack for saving the day. Everyone thinks the nightmare is over. But sitting on the steps of the Capitol contemplating his future no doubt, Tony sidles up next to Jack and tells him it’s not over, that there is another terrorist attack being planned - “high profile and high casualty.” It’s set for 7:00 pm that evening. To Jack, there’s no time to involve the FBI - he must head off the terrorists himself.
Body Count:
Marika dies bravely. Erica dies wretchedly.
Jack: 12
Show: 313
You won’t want to miss tonight’s Rick Moran Show, one of the most popular conservative talk shows on Blog Talk Radio.
Tonight, I welcome Jennifer Rubin, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, and Jazz Shaw to discuss the question “Who runs the Republican Party?”
The show will air from 7:00 - 8:00 PM Central time. You can access the live stream here. A podcast will be available for streaming or download shortly after the end of the broadcast.
Click on the stream below and join in on what one wag called a “Wayne’s World for adults.”
The Chat Room will open around 15 minutes before the show opens,
Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.
I am still trying to digest what everyone agrees was an important speech by Rush Limbaugh to CPAC attendees on Saturday. It was, perhaps, the most entertaining political speech I’ve ever heard. But a speech that will last for decades and make an impact on the conservative movement? No one knows. But we can try and judge it based on some solid principles of what makes a good political speech.
I have often pointed to Theodore H. White’s definition of what goes into the making of a good political speech - the moment in history when the speech is given, the background or “framing” of the speech, and the words themselves. In these respects, Limbaugh hit a stand up double and, with a little more effort, may have stretched it to a triple. The moment in history was ripe; conservatism at sea, rudderless, and uncertain of itself in the age of Obama. The backdrop - the CPAC convention with just about everyone who is anyone in the conservative movement present and paying attention (exceptions include some more moderate conservatives frozen out by the movement) as well as mass media coverage. But the words themselves meandered aimlessly at times as Limbaugh treated the address more like an extended monologue from his radio show rather than a well crafted, carefully thought out political speech.
Newt Gingrich also spoke to a large, enthusiastic crowd at CPAC but didn’t get half the coverage of Limbaugh despite a speech that, in many ways, was even more important than Rush’s tour de force. The difference in the two speeches was striking. Rush eschewed a teleprompter - to his detriment I think while Newt used the device to say exactly what he meant to say. Meanwhile, Gingrich had his ideas bubbling up from somewhere deep inside, churning and frothing on the surface until they were laid out like a picnic lunch, cogently and coherently by a master conceptualist. Limbaugh’s speech was more volcanic- erupting against Obama and the Democrats emotionally while flowing effortlessly from pop culture conservatism to a more thoughtful but still generalized critique of the Obama administration.
The juvenile confrontation yesterday between Limbaugh and RNC Chairman Michael Steele, placed in the context of Limbaugh’s extended remarks at CPAC, would lead one to believe that there is the possibility of a civil war erupting in the GOP between the grass roots and the elites. That may yet happen. However, I think it much more likely that war will break out between movement conservatives like Gingrich and “party men” like Limbaugh.
Who is Rush Limbaugh? And why did the only other speech of note at the conference - New Gingrich’s much more thoughtful but flawed critique of conservatism - not receive the massive attention devoted to Limbaugh?
Because Rush is on radio? I’m sure that’s part of it. But beyond that, one speaker gave the audience largely what they wanted to hear, putting into words the feelings and fears of listeners while the other engaged the minds of his audience by relating some uncomfortable but necessary truths. In that kind of competition, the appeal to emotion wins out over the appeal to intellect every time.
Limbaugh does not fit any of the comfortable definitions that liberals and the media love to apply to conservatives. Calling him a mere talk show host is simply wrong and reveals the ignorance of anyone who tries and make that claim. Limbaugh has crossed the cultural divide and, like Obama, become more than a political figure (or entertainer) and achieved a peculiar kind of celebrity. Ross Douthat believes a more appropos comparison is with Oprah Winfrey, someone who crosses easily between the entertainment and political world. In this respect, the irony is that both men start from the other side of that divide. Limbaugh, the entertainer has passed Obama while on the way to achieving his status as political bellweather of the GOP. Meanwhile, Obama was moving the other way, from political force to cultural celebrity. Loved by their legions of supporters, despised by their opponents (with both men generating a hate from their opponents that mirrors the passion of their supporters), the deliciousness of this parallel between the two men shows both the strengths and weaknesses of our political culture.
But Limbaugh’s status is a millstone around the neck of conservatism. Despite his obvious gift of a sharp mind and his presenting the clear impression that he has given a considerable amount of thought to the nature of modern conservatism, Limbaugh nevertheless has a rather narrow and even shallow view of what conservatism is and where it stands right now.
Limbaugh’s speech appealed to the heart, rather than the head.
For those of you just tuning in on the Fox News Channel or C-SPAN, I’m Rush Limbaugh and I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed. [Applause] Also, for those of you in the Drive-By Media watching, I have not needed a teleprompter for anything I’ve said. [Cheers and Applause ] And nor do any of us need a teleprompter, because our beliefs are not the result of calculations and contrivances. Our beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology. Our beliefs are our core. Our beliefs are our hearts. We don’t have to make notes about what we believe. We don’t have to write down, oh do I believe it do I believe that we can tell people what we believe off the top of our heads and we can do it with passion and we can do it with clarity, and we can do it persuasively. Some of us just haven’t had the inspiration or motivation to do so in a number of years, but that’s about to change. [Cheers and Applause]
Limbaugh struggles to move beyond these show biz tropes when he gets into what he describes as a definition of conservatism:
Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government. [Applause]
We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.
Aside from the small matter that the quote about “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” appears not in the preamble to the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence, that is a very nice start to explaining what conservatism means.
But after telling the audience he was going to define conservatism, Limbaugh flits away off to another red meat topic guaranteed to light a fire under his listeners. His bragging about not needing to write down what his principles are because “we can tell people what we believe off the top of our heads and we can do it with passion and we can do it with clarity, and we can do it persuasively,” may be true as far as it goes but I am reminded of Francis Bacon’s admonition “Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man.” Judging by Rush’s speech, he was anything but “exact.”
But this didn’t seem to bother his thousands of admirers as he hammered away gleefully at Obama and liberals. Here, Rush shows he’s somewhat familiar with Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s critique of the effect of the welfare state on Black families and gets to the nub of the Obama revolution; dependency:
They do believe that they have compassion. They do believe they care. But, see, we never are allowed to look at the results of their plans, we are told we must only look at their good intentions, their big hearts. The fact that they have destroyed poor families by breaking up those families by offering welfare checks to women to keep having babies no more father needed, he’s out doing something, the government’s the father, they destroy the family. We’re not supposed to analyze that. We’re not supposed to talk about that. We’re supposed to talk about their good intentions. They destroy people’s futures. The future is not Big Government. Self-serving politicians. Powerful bureaucrats. This has been tried, tested throughout history. The result has always been disaster. President Obama, your agenda is not new. It’s not change, and it’s not hope. [Applause] Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion. All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image.
(Crowd chanting “USA”)
It is not their task, it is not their right to remake this nation to accommodate their psychology. I sometimes wonder if liberalism is not just a psychosis or a psychology, not an ideology. It’s so much about feelings, and the predominant feeling that liberalism is about is about feeling good about themselves and they do that by telling themselves they have all this compassion. You know, if you really want to unhinge a liberal it’s hard to do because they’re so unhinged now anyway, even after — but all you have to do is say you know that the things you people do, the things you people believe in are cruel. That’s the last way they look at themselves. They are the best people on the — they’re the good people. You tell them that their ideas and that their policies are cruel and the eggs start scrambling.
But it was Rush’s references to Reagan that put him at odds with reformers like Gingrich. Limbaugh believes talk of “change” is treason. There is nothing wrong with conservatism that wouldn’t be cured by transplanting the Reagan agenda to the present:
Conservatism — for us to make the decision that we’ve got to figure out policies, to get the Walmart voter — psst, we’ve got most of them already, is the bottom line. Conservatism is a universal set of core principles. You don’t check principles at the door. This is a battle that we’re going to have. And there are egos involved here, too. When the situation like ours exists, there are people who want to lead it. They want to redefine it. Their egos are such that they want to be the next X, whoever it is. So there will be different factions lining up to try to define what conservatism is. And beware of those different factions who seek as part of their attempt to redefine conservatism, as making sure the liberals like us, making sure that the media likes us. They never will, as long as we remain conservatives. They can’t possibly like us; they’re our enemy. In a political arena of ideas, they’re our enemy. They think we need to be defeated. Why do you think — you all in this room know this. For those of you watching at home, my first address to the nation — [Laughter] — I’m sure you paid close enough attention, that you knew at one time Senator McCain was the favorite Republican of all the cable news networks and the Sunday shows. And they would just — I mean their tongues would be on the floor. The media people (panting) when they knew McCain was coming. And they would treat McCain as the greatest guy in the world. Did you wonder why? You were told he was moderate. He was not strict. He was not an authoritarian, he was able to walk to the other side of the aisle, able to get along with the enemy. And everybody wants love and bipartisanship.
That’s not why they invited Senator McCain. They invited Senator McCain because he happened to be the loudest at criticizing his own president and his own party and that’s what they want, is people from our side — and there will be factions in our movement, folks, who are going to make an effort to say we have to grow, we can’t stay stale, I think I heard the term used the other day. Nothing stale about freedom. There’s nothing stale about liberty. There’s nothing stale about fighting for it. Nothing stale whatsoever. [Applause] Freedom. Are you getting tired of standing up, I don’t blame you. By the way for those watching on TV you think the standing — people are just tired. They’ve been up and out of their chairs 100 times here. [Applause] Thank you. Freedom — freedom is the natural yearning of the human spirit as we were endowed by our creator. And the United States of America is the place in the world where that yearning flourishes, where freedom is expected because it’s part of the way we’re created.
I will say frankly that this is the nuttiest part of Limbaugh’s speech. There is probably no one answer to what ails conservatism but there is widespread agreement among profressionals that people like Rush, who wish to repeal not only the Great Society but also the New Deal, are anachronisms. It is not going to happen - ever. The question then becomes do conservatives chase a will o’ the wisp goals that guarantee them permanent minority status or do they apply conservative principles to government as it is and not as we would wish it to be?
I am a broken record saying this as my regular readers know. Since I began promoting this course of action, several commenters have made some excellent points that reveal glaring weaknesses in this formulation. To wit.
* There is a danger that anything proposed by conservatives in Congress would be seen simply as “liberal lite” and voters would give the GOP no credit for dealing with reality.
* The nature of the opposition would make any effort to apply conservative principles to governance moot.
* There is also a danger of throwing our principles under the bus in an effort to compromise.
* The American people are basically conservative and all we have to do is become more conservative ourselves to win.
This will not be an easy or quick route back to power. But I believe a recognition that for conservatism to be vital it must be brought into the 21st century where appeals to the heart fall by the wayside and calls for new thinking dominate. Here’s Gingrich at CPAC (unfortunately I have been unable to acquire a transcript of this speech and only have these extended excerpts):
The great irony of where we are today is that we have a Bush- Obama big spending program that was bipartisan in its nature. Last year the Bush-Obama plan had a $180 billion stimulus package in the spring which failed. It came back with a $345 billion housing package in the summer which failed. It then had a $700 billion Wall Street spending package in October which failed. It had a $4 trillion Federal Reserve guarantee which failed… We got big spending under Bush, now we got big spending under Obama. And so we have 2 new failures. The lesson I draw from this is that we have a party of the American people… that was led by Ronald Reagan and on the legislative side reached its peak with the Contract with America and the election of a majority actually dedicated to reforming welfare, cutting taxes, and balancing the budget. And there is a party of big government and political elites and tragically in the last few years the Republican party became the right wing of the party of big government and political elites. And that is why there is a Bush Obama continuity in economic policy which is frankly a disaster for this country and cannot work.”
I find it fascinating that both men invoke the name of Reagan in two entirely different theaters. Rush points to Reagan’s core beliefs as set in stone - despite the fact that 48% of Americans already pay no taxes at all. How across the board tax cuts would generate the trillions in revenue to offset the damage already done by Obama goes unanswered.
On the other hand, Gingrich takes the Gipper’s desire to reach out to Democrats and independents and uses it as a model for a conservative comeback. Note also that where Rush almost exclusively talks of Republicans, Gingrich speaks more generally about conservatives.
I consider this the most important statement made during the entire week:
And so it is time to recreate the party of the American people and to recognize that that is a much bigger party than the Republican party. In every major political speech Ronald Reagan reached out to Democrats and Independents as well as Republicans, and he understood to govern in America you have to bring people together in a tripartisan majority. We are bigger than the Republican party, we stand for principles that transcend the Republican party, and we’re going to fight for the principles that lead to economic growth and jobs.”
It is implicit in forming this “tri-partisan majority” that some aspects of the welfare state as well as regulatory agencies are remade to function according to conservative principles and not done away with entirely as many Limbaugh conservatives would like to see. Too many Americans benefit from these government programs for the Middle Class to abandon them in favor of some nebulous promise that suffering by denying oneself benefits from government is somehow enobling. In a modern state of 300 million people, the Jeffersonian “yeoman farmer” model of the republic is a fantasy that, if it ever was true, hasn’t been so for more than 100 years.
Limbaugh, the Iconoclast vs. Gingrich the Conceptualizer. That is where the movement will cleave most noticably. One side living in the past, fantasizing about recapturing conservative greatness by stroking Reagan’s name and accomplishments as if they were a magic talisman designed to wipe away the modern world and lead us back to some ancien regime where everyone bagged their own meat, built their own houses, and churned their own butter. The other, dealing with life in America as it is in the 21st century - an enormously complex clash of interests where conservatism must find a comfortable place in which to compete in the great marketplace of ideas.
It will be a lovely little war.
Both of them should stick a sock in it.
When Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican party, so violently disrespects mega star talk show host Rush Limbaugh, one has to wonder what sh*t for brains political outfit elected this numbskull to any position higher than Front Door Greeter.
Rule #1 in politics; never hand your opponents a club with which to beat you over the head. Rule #2 is “Don’t eat your own.” Steele broke both those rules and a few others by essentially adopting his opponent’s narrative regarding Limbaugh and opening a wound in the party and among conservatives that will not be easy to heal:
“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh’s whole thing is entertainment,” Steele said. “Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly.”
Last month, Steele, a former lieutenant governor of Maryland, was elected chair of the RNC. He is the first African-American to lead the Republican Party. At the time of his election, Steele said that “Rush will say what Rush has to say; we’ll do what we have to do.”
And I’m very happy to report that at least Steele knows who signs his paycheck:
Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele is taking issue with the notion that Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the GOP, calling the conservative radio talk show host an entertainer whose comments can be ugly.
Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in an interview with CNN that he, rather than Limbaugh, is “the de facto leader of the Republican Party.”
Greg Sargent, pushing the newest liberal talking point that Republicans want Obama to fail (while failing to point out that many on the left spent the last 6 years celebrating casualties and hoping for a defeat of American arms in Iraq while gleefully predicting a recession was just around the corner every month) reports that Steele isn’t apologizing:
The problem for Steele, of course, is that by hitting Rush — and provoking a response from the talk show host — he’s left himself in the unenviable position of having to answer Rush’s implicit demand that he say whether he’s With Rush Or Against Him when it comes to Rush’s desire for Obama to fail. It’s not a good position to be in: Either Steele distances himself from Rush and angers the base, or he throws in his lot with the GOP’s pro-failure brigade and makes it easier for Dems to paint the GOP as petulant, partisan obstructionists.
Amusingly, either choice would help Rush: The first gives him a potent rallying point, and the second demonstrates his power over the party. What’s more, all this underscores again the astonishing degree to which the interests of Rush and Democrats are aligned here, since both Rush and Democrats want Steele, and every other Republican, to publicly make exactly the same choice.
This is news. Limbaugh, the meglomaniacal, power hungry entertainer demanding Steele give him a Bushesque statement of being “with him, or against him.” Could that be true?
Only if you’re a liberal and have the mind of sofa. The rest of us prefer reading what Limbaugh actually said:
I hope the RNC chairman will realize he’s not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats don’t nominate our candidates,” Limbaugh said, his voice rising. “It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you’re having a tough time pulling off.”
Steele, Limbaugh said, had “taken the bait” by the media.
Limbaugh also offered a harsh assessment on the state of the GOP.
“I’m not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don’t want to be,” he said. ” I would be embarrassed to say that I’m in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it’s in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it’s in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife because I would have presided over a failure that is embarrassing to the Republicans and conservatives who have supported it and invested in it all these years.”
The talk show host also schooled the RNC chairman on political truths - when in the opposition, oppose:
When you send those fundraising requests out, Mr. Steele, make sure you say, we — we — we want Obama to succeed. So people understand your compassion. Republicans, conservatives are sick and tired of being talked down to, sick and tired of being lectured to. And until you show some understanding and respect for who they are, you’re going to have a tough time rebuilding your party.
Allah has the real politik speil on where Steele and Eric Cantor (who also dissed Limbaugh) are coming from:
My point then, and Ace’s point today, is that pandering to centrists is a political fact of life for politicians. Steele and Cantor, when forced to choose between criticizing Limbaugh and having to explain his “I hope he fails” rhetoric over and over again, will take the former every time: Right-wing partisans will turn out against Obama anyway in four years but the middle has to be wooed, and defending a sentiment about failure in the current political climate while The One’s busy framing himself as Mr. Nonpartisan does not a winning “moderate” message make. No wonder Gibbs is urging the media to keep asking Republicans whether they agree with Limbaugh. If they say yes, they’re vindictive partisans and if they say no they’ll get hammered by Rush on his show.
Fine, as far as it goes. The problem is that it isn’t a question of “pandering to centrists” by politicians but perhaps missing an opportunity for a counterattack.
One of the major complaints I heard all week at CPAC was the timidity of Republicans and conservatives in the face of Obama’s political dominance. Limbaugh’s point about “hoping Obama fails” is not that he wishes ill for the country but rather what kind of nation will emerge if he succeeds.
From the Limbaugh CPAC address:
As I say, we want the best: Happiness for everybody. Now, about my still-to-me mysteriously controversial comment that I hope President Obama fails. I was watching the Super Bowl. And as you know, I love the Pittsburgh Steelers. [Cheers and Applause] So they have this miraculous scoring drive that puts them up by four, 15 seconds left. Kurt Warner on the field for the Cardinals. And I sure as heck want you to know I hope he failed. I did not want the Cardinals to win. I wanted Warner to make the biggest fool of himself possible. I wanted a sack, I wanted anything. I wanted the Steelers to win. I wanted to win. I wanted the Cardinals to fail.
This notion that I want the President to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we’ve got. That’s nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it, why in the world do I want what we just described, rampant government growth indebtedness, wealth that’s not even being created yet that is being spent, what is in this? What possibly is in this that anybody of us wants to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail!
CROWD: Yes!
RUSH: They certainly did. They not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. There’s Dingy Harry Reid waiving a white flag: [doing Harry Reid impression] “This war is lost. This war is” — [Cheers and Applause] They called General Petraeus a liar before he even testified. Mrs. Clinton — [Crowd Booing] — said she had to, willingly suspend disbelief in order to listen to Petraeus. We’re in the process of winning the war. The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed? [Applause]
What’s wrong with a comeback when asked if the GOP wants Obama to fail that includes the notion that Republicans want the American people to succeed but think Obama’s policies are dead wrong? How hard is that to explain? Are these guys so inarticulate that they can’t lay down basic Republcan/conservative principles in a couple of well chosen sentences? Jesus Christ! Would someone please get some 3 X 5 note cards and write down basic talking points for these ignoramuses? Makes sure they’re in words of two syllables or less.
Now as my readers know, I am no fan of Limbaugh. His “show biz conservatism” is a mile wide, an inch deep, and takes forms that while not “ugly,” certainly move the idea of hyperpartisanship to a whole other level. And Limbaugh’s response to Steele was a tad overwrought (Allah rightfully points out that Rush should have a thicker skin by now.)
That being said, with Obama’s agenda on the march to permanently alter America, in the only way he knows how, Rush is trying to stop it. And it’s an open question as to how hard Steele is working to block these transformative, risky, adventurous, and ruinously expensive measures coming down the pike.
If Steele wants to lead the GOP, get out front and lead then. Don’t pull rank on Limbaugh because you only magnify his importance - at your expense. If you spent less time on talk shows agreeing with Democrats who are savaging the party you are supposed to be leading and more time, like, you know, actually opposing what they are trying to do, that would prove your qualities to conservatives who are feeling a little put out by being told that their party convention resembled a Nazi gathering.
The country is going to hell in a handbasket economically, the Democrats are tearing at the Founding Fabric of the nation, our grandchildren are going to be working for the federal government with every dime being taken to service an unserviceable debt, and the world’s bad guys are looking at Obama and feeling pretty damned good.
Meanwhile, Steele and Limbaugh act like two little boys in the schoolyard who unzip, whip it out, and claim their’s is bigger.
Great. Just great.
I have returned from my trip to Washington after an irritating day of travel yesterday. The tiny plane that I took from DC to Philly (I was supposed to lay over an hour there) was delayed taking off because the Captain - bless him - decided to de-ice the plane before we left. Because of his caution, I missed my connecting flight to Chicago but considering the alternative of flying through a snow and ice storm without de-icing, I am not going to complain.
I’m sure you’ve heard plenty already about CPAC and what or what it didn’t accomplish. For myself, if I were to give the conference a grade it would be a D+. Much red meat - little substance. I understand that this is not unusal for CPAC but given the urgency of the need for reform and the fact that so many people who are actually engaged in the process of reform were present. I thought there might be a little more debate and brainstorming than there ended up being.
The real business of the conference took place behind the scenes at the social gatherings hosted by some of the many groups who exhibited at the conference. As a blogger, I got invited to quite of few of these shindigs and I can tell you that most of the debate about where the movement (and to a lesser extent the Republican party) should be headed took place among activists, lawyers, lobbyists, political pros, non-profit staff, and pundits who shared a drink or two while assessing the prospects for change.
I’m not going to name drop but it is probable if you follow politics closely, you would have heard of or seen on TV a lot of people that I spoke to. Some knew of my writings and were interested in what I had to say. Others wanted the perspective of the blogosphere - which I was happy to give them as honestly as I could. In all instances, I was encouraged by the hunger to seek a new path for conservatism that would lead back to the top.
I hasten to add that no one was suggesting that conservtive principles be abandoned. In that respect, almost everyone agreed with Newt Gingrich that we should be a movement of “bold pastels” as Ronald Reagan put it - our ideals put forth confidently and with certainty. The number one symptom that many agreed was holding conservatism back at this point was timidity in the face of Obama’s success. This was before Rush Limbaugh’s speech on Saturday so I am unsure if there were some who wouldn’t change their mind about that after hearing Rush.
What about Rush? A great performance. But a blueprint for change? I’m afraid not. In fact, Limbaugh set himself squarely on the side of those who believe there isn’t much wrong with conservatism except we’re not being conservative enough. This is depressing if only because Limbaugh - rightly or wrongly - is seen as a leader of the conservative movement. I think this rather silly even though Rush has transcended the notion of pure celebrity and entered the political realm. Limbaugh - who placed the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” clause in the Constitution’s preamble rather than the Declaration of Indpenendence - had similar problems with placing his conservative beliefs in a coherent context. Being for individual liberty and accomplishment is fine. But Rush said precious little more about the definition of conservatism from there on out.
But on the positive side, Limbaugh gave a stirring and devastating critique of Obama’s bail out culture. Some described it as “angry” which I would agree with wholeheartedly. And why not? It is nonsense to believe that conservatives shouldn’t be angry with what Obama is doing to the country. The people voted for change, not the fundamental alterations that Obama is carrying out using the economic crisis as an excuse for massive intrusions by the government into the private sector. Some of this is certainly unavoidable. But I am beginning to believe that Obama’s concern for the economy is secondary to his ambition to change this country from what it was - a free, capitalist superpower - to what he wants it to be - a mostly free, mixed economy, second rate power.
Limbaugh’s red meat address actually did some good; it cheered conservatives at a time they needed a boost. But Limbaugh actually may have started something of a civil war with his criticism of Newt Gingrich and those of us who believe that something is wrong with conservatism and that more is needed than simply believing more strongly in the movement and throwing up candidates who are even more “conservative” (according to Limbaugh’s lights) than we have in the recent past.
Gingrich, who gave an equally harsh appraisal of Obama and the Democrats, managed to shoehorn in some very telling comments about conservatism. In fact, I believe he spoke the most important words of the conference when he said, ”
“And so it is time to recreate the party of the American people and to recognize that that is a much bigger party than the Republican party. In every major political speech Ronald Reagan reached out to Democrats and Independents as well as Republicans, and he understood to govern in America you have to bring people together in a tripartisan majority. We are bigger than the Republican party, we stand for principles that transcend the Republican party, and we’re going to fight for the principles that lead to economic growth and jobs.”
I’m not sure if Limbaugh doesn’t mean “Republican” when he says “conservative.” There are many of us who believe that conservatism should no longer be the handmaiden of a party that uses the good name of conservatism and whose acts are totally at odds with the way a conservative legislator should vote. Rather, we believe it should be the other way around; that conservatism should be the tail that wags the Republican party dog, that if they want our money, our activists, and our support, they should comport themselves in such a way as to gain our confidence so that they not only call themselves “conservative” but act that way as well.
(I hope to compare and contrast the Gingrich-Limbaugh speeches tomorrow.)
CPAC was one of the more interesting things I’ve done these last four years I’ve spent as a blogger. I hope I don’t regret spending my own money in a few months. But considering how seriously I take the present course of conservatism, it was probably well spent even if the worst happens and my job disappears.
Powered by WordPress