Limbaugh

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

I know it's not high-minded behaviour by the Democratic party but I struggle to feel bad about it. I think the election was a turning point, the whole Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, "real americans" campaign deserves to be placed under the spotlight. The conventional political wisdom has always been that you don't draw attention to figures like Rush for fear of elevating their importance, so this eighty stone gorilla in the room (literally 80st gorilla in his case!) is awkwardly and somewhat misleadingly ignored while people only recognize the more measured or more politically established figures. There are certainly intelligent and intellectual figures in the conservative movement and the Republican party specifically, but aren't we kidding ourselves if we try to say that they make up the driving force of supporters, the "grass roots"? Perhaps the same argument could be used about the Dems. I don't know. I certainly can't fault the idea that, in terms of grass root numbers, Limbaugh really does seem to be the emotional leader of the GOP - plenty of senior Republican figures have said as much. For me, the crux is that given the way that whole grass roots idea was so central to the campaign against Obama for the last 12 months, sanctioned on high from the GOP, given the whole "Rush's Americans are the real American" tactic - I think they frankly deserve to be called on this.

I guess that what I question is this:

Yes, the "grass-roots" conservative movement seems to be the Rush Limbaugh crowd rather than the intelligent and intellectual figures in the Republican Party. I mean hell, they even tried to make the word "intellectual" a dirty word during the campaign, which was extremely telling. But do they just seem to be the grass-roots portion of the party because they're the most marginalized at the moment, and as a result the most vocal? My fear is that taking this broad, aggressive approach of labeling Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party might damage some potential relationships that could be formed with the intelligent and intellectual members of the party.

So I really don't know. On the one hand, a huge portion of the conservative crowd does deserve to fall under this Rush Limbaugh umbrella, but I hope it's not at the expense of alienating the ones who don't.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Man, I'm horny.

Could one of you hook me up with one of Rush's tramps?

[Sean]

I see that you're "final post" idea only lasted a couple minutes.

Re-posting my last entry since jOHN has tried to subvert this tread yet again...

Originally Posted by Deckard

I know it's not high-minded behaviour by the Democratic party but I struggle to feel bad about it. I think the election was a turning point, the whole Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, "real americans" campaign deserves to be placed under the spotlight. The conventional political wisdom has always been that you don't draw attention to figures like Rush for fear of elevating their importance, so this eighty stone gorilla in the room (literally 80st gorilla in his case!) is awkwardly and somewhat misleadingly ignored while people only recognize the more measured or more politically established figures. There are certainly intelligent and intellectual figures in the conservative movement and the Republican party specifically, but aren't we kidding ourselves if we try to say that they make up the driving force of supporters, the "grass roots"? Perhaps the same argument could be used about the Dems. I don't know. I certainly can't fault the idea that, in terms of grass root numbers, Limbaugh really does seem to be the emotional leader of the GOP - plenty of senior Republican figures have said as much. For me, the crux is that given the way that whole grass roots idea was so central to the campaign against Obama for the last 12 months, sanctioned on high from the GOP, given the whole "Rush's Americans are the real American" tactic - I think they frankly deserve to be called on this.

I guess that what I question is this:

Yes, the "grass-roots" conservative movement seems to be the Rush Limbaugh crowd rather than the intelligent and intellectual figures in the Republican Party. I mean hell, they even tried to make the word "intellectual" a dirty word during the campaign, which was extremely telling. But do they just seem to be the grass-roots portion of the party because they're the most marginalized at the moment, and as a result the most vocal? My fear is that taking this broad, aggressive approach of labeling Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party might damage some potential relationships that could be formed with the intelligent and intellectual members of the party.

So I really don't know. On the one hand, a huge portion of the conservative crowd does deserve to fall under this Rush Limbaugh umbrella, but I hope it's not at the expense of alienating the ones who don't.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sean

I guess that what I question is this:
Yes, the "grass-roots" conservative movement seems to be the Rush Limbaugh crowd rather than the intelligent and intellectual figures in the Republican Party. I mean hell, they even tried to make the word "intellectual" a dirty word during the campaign, which was extremely telling. But do they just seem to be the grass-roots portion of the party because they're the most marginalized at the moment, and as a result the most vocal? My fear is that taking this broad, aggressive approach of labeling Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party might damage some potential relationships that could be formed with the intelligent and intellectual members of the party.

My perspective is that it isn't the "grass roots" (mob, more like it)/ rush side of things that are marginalized, its the conservative intellectuals that are marginalized. And that's why there is no check on Rush. But then I can't possibly see any difference between rush and hannity and coulter, outside of their different levels of success. Which, again, is why I'm arguing that rush is main stream and thus deserves to be head of the republicans out of power as well as volume.

That's why as much as I cna't stand people like david frum, his is a conservative intellectual and it is telling that he's constantly being attacked by right wing radio, also left the national review, the bastion of seasoned, british classical conservative intellectualism that really is no different now from hannity and colmes in agenda. But he's innefectual because he's sullied by the bad decisions that faltered conservative intellectual work. Sad but true. Its only people with clean hands like gov. of utah. john huntsman. who will be able to believably rebuild an effective conservative mind trust.

and john. I thought you were taking off for a bit. or was that just to trick the mods so you can continue spamming?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

My perspective is that it isn't the "grass roots" (mob, more like it)/ rush side of things that are marginalized, its the conservative intellectuals that are marginalized.

I say they're marginalized because of the broad shift we saw in the Presidential election that was a direct slap at the more radical, Limbaugh-type conservatives, with even some traditionally red states turning blue. But in another sense, as you say, it's absolutely fair to say that it seems the conservative intellectuals are being marginalized as well.

Originally Posted by Strangelet

And that's why there is no check on Rush. But then I can't possibly see any difference between rush and hannity and coulter, outside of their different levels of success. Which, again, is why I'm arguing that rush is main stream and thus deserves to be head of the republicans out of power as well as volume.

True dat.

Originally Posted by Strangelet

That's why as much as I cna't stand people like david frum, his is a conservative intellectual and it is telling that he's constantly being attacked by right wing radio, also left the national review, the bastion of seasoned, british classical conservative intellectualism that really is no different now from hannity and colmes in agenda. But he's innefectual because he's sullied by the bad decisions that faltered conservative intellectual work. Sad but true. Its only people with clean hands like gov. of utah. john huntsman. who will be able to believably rebuild an effective conservative mind trust.

I really am fearful of which branch of the conservative world will win out in the coming years. Will it be the John Huntsmans, or the Sarah Palins?

Originally Posted by Strangelet

and john. I thought you were taking off for a bit. or was that just to trick the mods so you can continue spamming?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

No, it was a trick on you two.

[Strangelet]

let me post some stuff from conservative websites and see if we can paint a picture where all this is heading.

Chuck Norris discussed the issue on Beck's TV program last week.
"It's interesting because I read about John Adams, you know, who said that our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people," Norris said. "It's wholly inadequate for the government of any other. Now, can you see this, Glenn? You see what's happening?"
"You are exactly right," Beck said. "When America listens to her gut and stops listening to all the experts, we're going to be fine."

One is Harry Riley, a veteran military officer who spent part of his career in the Pentagon. Riley said the issue is basically over whether Americans will allow "the trashing" of their Constitution.
"Myself, along with hundreds of thousands of other warriors, have fought for the U.S. Constitution. The whole issue is one of constitutional crisis, in my judgment. How can an individual become the commander-in-chief, or the president of the U.S., with questions regarding his constitutional qualifications?" he asked.

"The whole idea is that America cannot allow an individual to serve as president who isn't qualified. It destroys our Constitution. It's the bedrock of our nation," he said.

"In the worst case, in the long run, if he continues [to fight revealing his documentation,] it's going to be revolution in the streets," he warned.

"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," his statement said.

Recently President Obama’s picture was removed from a base commissary in Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, prompting a challenge by employees as it was allegedly removed after one customer complained noting Obama’s race.

While this may not be a trend, it is noteworthy that the hostility is so openly practiced by those sworn to uphold the Constitution. As President, Ronald Reagan started the practice of treating the military as an adjunct to the Republican Party. Senator Jesse Helms warned President Clinton that if he visited a military base in North Carolina he may be shot and President George W. Bush routinely used members of the military as props during public relations tours.

The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution. During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.” The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way.

if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state," he continued. "From the East Coast to the 'Left Coast,' America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government

He pointed to issues that in other times would have shocked: "George Washington advised, 'The great rule of conduct in regard to foreign nations is in extending our relations [and] having with them as little political connection as possible.' Yet the Obama just pledged $900 million … to Hamas-controlled Gaza."

[Strangelet]

If the conclusion is not a violent right wing militia movement, it might be a blubbering mormon manchild?


what.

the.

fuck.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

If the conclusion is not a violent right wing militia movement, it might be a blubbering mormon manchild?


what.

the.

fuck.

Hey LOOK! I got my name back. It's still the turned inside out, but like you Dr. Stranglet, WTF. Consider yourself high and mighty as you get to spell it out.

In regards to your post: I thought you were one of them?

[//\/\/]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

If the conclusion is not a violent right wing militia movement, it might be a blubbering mormon manchild?


what.

the.

fuck.

(he's a fucking piss-poor actor)

i just checked out his website http://the912project.com/ - particularly good is the 'clever' pro-gun texas video clip - as good an advert against conceal carry as i can think of...