Rush: Malaise redux

posted at 2:40 pm on July 31, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

You know, Rush Limbaugh celebrates his 20th anniversary in syndication this week, an amazing accomplishment in any entertainment medium but especially so in radio.  Why has he succeeded so completely?  Perhaps because he can connect the dots, and the dottiness, as he does with Barack Obama’s energy policy as explained yesterday.  Take a listen to Rush’s deconstruction:

LIMBAUGH: This is Obama yesterday at a campaign event in Springfield, Missouri:

OBAMA: All the oil they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups, you could actually save just as much.

LIMBAUGH: This is unbelievable! My friends, this is laughable of course, but it’s stupid! It is stupid! How many of you remember the seventies? When we had these shortages, all through the Jimmy Carter years and we have all these tips, all these tips on how to save gasoline? Avoid jackrabbit starts, keep your tires properly inflated, there’s a list of about ten or twelve these things. I said if I follow each one of these things I’ll have to stop the car every five miles, siphon some fuel out, for all the fuel I’m going to be saving.

This is ridiculous. This is a presidential candidate and he’s talking about keeping your tires inflated and getting regular tune-ups and that would save as much oil as drilling would produce. And this guy is the Democrat presidential nominee. Who has filled his head with this stuff?

This is “malaise” redux.  Rush has been on the air twenty years, but the Democrats seem determined to recycle their policies from thirty years ago.  Revisit with me the infamous Carter speech from April 1977:

The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly. It’s a problem that we will not be able to solve in the next few years, and it’s likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and our grandchildren. We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now we can control our future instead of letting the future control us. …

Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices. The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern this Nation. This difficult effort will be the “moral equivalent of war,” except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not to destroy.

The absurdity here is that while Carter complained about declining production, it was American policies that forced that decline — just as it does today. Ronald Reagan relaxed restrictions and tax penalties on production, and the energy crisis abated. Today, we have at least six Saudi Arabias in oil shale alone, let alone what we can get from ANWR and the OCS — and just like in the Carter era, the Democrats won’t let us get it.

Instead, we hear the same kind of hysterical rhetoric today that we heard in 1977. “National catastrophe” has turned into “global climate catastrophe”, but otherwise the rest of it sounds exactly the same. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are nothing but Jimmy Carter retreads.

Happy 20th anniversary, Rush. You keep proving why you’re indispensable.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

misterpeasea on July 31, 2008 at 9:42 PM

So nice to see you back, misterpeasea. I’ve got a question for you. Perhaps you cold answer it. I’ve very curious to get your response. Earlier, you said:

I’d rather Bambi discredit liberalism than a squish discredit conservatism. Not much potential short-term upside and huge potential long-term downside to President McSquish. More certain potential short-term downside, but a larger potential long-term upside with Bambi.
misterpeasea on July 31, 2008 at 4:54 PM

and

I’m still waiting for these “McCain or Die” folks to explain how President McSquish, who is going to discredit conservatism for 15-20 years (thanks partly to folks like them insisting that he’s a conservative) with his stupid and costly policies on amnesty and global warmism, is better than sucking it up and letting President Bambi discredit liberalism for 15-20 years and swing the Congress back to Republicans.
And it’ll be easier (but not easy!) to defeat amnesty with President Bambi than with President McSquish. We can undo just about anything else, but amnesty is forever.
And the party with the Presidency loses seats in Congress in the mid-term elections.
misterpeasea on July 31, 2008 at 4:36 PM

So my question is two fold. So if you would rather have Obama elected in 2008, so he could somehow discredit liberalism for 15-20 years, my question is this:

What are you going to do to make what you’d rather come to pass? Such as, voting for Obama? Or are you just going to leave this up to chance. And secondly, how would Obama ‘discredit liberalism for 15-20 years’? I mean, how would he accomplish such a feat?

Any chance for an answer to these two simple questions? That would be great.

Thanks.

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 9:54 PM

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 9:54 PM

You’re funny, _man.

I used to ask you questions, to try to engage you substantively. You never, ever responded with anything but the standard LYING LIAR WHO LIES ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN cheer.

And now you want me to answer your questions.

You alternate between whining and bullying. You alternate between rational and irrational. And now you’re stalking me.

I’m glad you don’t have access to my personal information.

misterpeasea on July 31, 2008 at 10:24 PM

So you aren’t going to answer the question

What are you going to do to make what “you’d rather” Obama be the next president come true?

And you aren’t going to answer the question

How would Obama ‘discredit liberalism for 15-20 years’ by being elected in 2004, something that you would rather see happen?

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 10:27 PM

And are you going to continue to follow me from page to page, and post a comment such as this, misterpeasea on July 31, 2008 at 9:50 PM – something your friend said was It’s a parody of wise_man. … “parody” aka: mocking me.

What are you trying to accomplish by doing this? Do you want to get me angry at your antics? Are you doing this to punish me? I don’t get it and would appreciate an explanation to what you are doing.

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 10:31 PM

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 10:31 PM

Your ego is enormous, _man. Do you really think I’m following you from page to page?

I don’t have to parody you. You parody yourself, and you’ve discredited yourself amongst all the people who post here regularly. You have nothing to offer other than mindless, obnoxious cheerleading.

There are going to be things in life, as you get older, that you don’t understand. This, obviously, is one of them. Start developing coping skills now, they will come in handy in the adult world.

And let me ask you a question: why, do you think, have only 21 House Republicans donated to McSquish? Are they secret Obama operatives? Are they LYING LIARS WHO LIE ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN? Should they go on over to Kos or HuffPo with the rest of the trash?

I’d appreciate an answer to these questions, _man. Thank you in advance.

misterpeasea on July 31, 2008 at 10:37 PM

And let me ask you a question: why, do you think, have only 21 House Republicans donated to McSquish?

I don’t know. You’d have to ask them.

Now any chance you’ll answer my question about why, since “you’d rather” Obama be president over McCain, that we could suffer through the brief four years, and then by magic, we’ll have a more conservative president because Obama will ‘discredit liberalism for 15-20 years’ – what you are going to do to get your wish to come true. Such as vote for Obama to make this happen, or just leave it up to chance?

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 10:45 PM

I don’t know. You’d have to ask Obama.

misterpeasea on July 31, 2008 at 10:52 PM

What are you going to do about it. So he gets elected. As you’d “rather” would happen.

And Obama never claimed that he would ‘discredit liberalism for 15-20 years’ , you did. So I am asking you.

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 10:55 PM

You alternate between whining and bullying.

No, he usually keeps them simultaneous. It’s funny how he will contradict himself with both often in one post.

You alternate between rational and irrational.

Half right. Not the first half.

And now you’re stalking me.

Get used to it. He stalks everyone he doesn’t like, and then will tell them to seek medical attention.

MadisonConservative on July 31, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama
Barack Obama/Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter/Barack Obama
Barack Obama Jimmy Carter Barack Carter Jimmy Obama Carter Jimmy Obama Carter ObamaCarterJimmyBarackJimmyObamaCarterBarackJimmyObamaCarter… AHHHHHHH ! ! !

FloatingRock on July 31, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Wow. All three of you are here.

What a coincidence.

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 11:02 PM

MadisonConservative on July 31, 2008 at 11:01 PM

So what are you going to do this election MadisonConservative? Any plans yet?

Voting for someone, against someone else? Nothing?

Hmm?

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 11:04 PM

Wow. All three of you are here.

What a coincidence.

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 11:02 PM

I am not a number, I am a free man!

FloatingRock on July 31, 2008 at 11:04 PM

For example, While I voted for someone else in the republican primary, and my choice lost, and McCain won, I am planning on doing my civic duty and voting for McCain, as a way to attempt to prevent Barack Obama from winning the whitehouse.

What are you fine gentlemen planning. misterpeasea is too shy, and won’t even give me a hint. And I’ve asked nicely. Anyone want to mention their plans?

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 11:07 PM

… do my civic duty as voting. and then my choice is McCain. I’d like to vote for someone else, but there is only going to be one person out of the two who will be the next president. Not three. not a choice of four. You see, the primaries are over.

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 11:09 PM

Anyone want to mention their plans?

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 11:07 PM

It’s early yet, for the time I’m waiting in the weeds.

FloatingRock on July 31, 2008 at 11:09 PM

It’s early yet, for the time being I’m waiting in the weeds.

FloatingRock on July 31, 2008 at 11:10 PM

Ah, I see. Good man. Thanks for the mention. As you say, it is about three months away yet.

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 11:11 PM

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 10:45 PM

_man, I think FloatingRock just provided you with a clue as to how Bambi might discredit liberalism. Or do you think his liberalism will be a success?

Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama
Barack Obama/Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter/Barack Obama
Barack Obama Jimmy Carter Barack Carter Jimmy Obama Carter Jimmy Obama Carter ObamaCarterJimmyBarackJimmyObamaCarterBarackJimmyObamaCarter… AHHHHHHH ! ! !

FloatingRock on July 31, 2008 at 11:01 PM

misterpeasea on July 31, 2008 at 11:14 PM

So what are you going to do this election MadisonConservative? Any plans yet?

Voting for someone, against someone else? Nothing?

Hmm?

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 11:04 PM

You do realize that it’s a secret ballot, right? Something tells me you didn’t.

However, I’ll tell you straight out: I’m writing in Fred Thompson, unless pigs fly at the conventions and two entirely different candidates are chosen.

MadisonConservative on July 31, 2008 at 11:14 PM

Barack Obama
Jimmy Carter
BjAiRmAmCyK OCbAaRmTaER
JbIaMrMaYck cOaBrAtMeAr

FloatingRock on July 31, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Wow. All three of you are here.

What a coincidence.

wise_man on July 31, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Yeah, it’s all a conspiracy.

Building seven, man. Can’t you see???

MadisonConservative on July 31, 2008 at 11:33 PM

Barack Obama
Jimmy Carter
BjAiRmAmCyK OCbAaRmTaER
JbIaMrMaYck cOaBrAtMeAr

FloatingRock on July 31, 2008 at 11:31 PM

He’s trying to tell you something, _man. I almost see where he’s going. I think he’s trying to say something about Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama…

Nope, I had it for a second, but it’s gone. I’ll let you know if I figure anything out.

misterpeasea on July 31, 2008 at 11:38 PM

If the country has to go through 4 years of Bambi liberalism to get 15-20 years of conservatism, that seems like a desirable outcome to me.

misterpeasea on July 31, 2008 at 5:42 PM

I really have to take issue with your assessment that 4 years of McVain leads to 15-20 years of liberalism. It will only take two(2) years of Obama-lama-ding-dong and a super-majority congress to give the country two(2) generations of socialism that will not be overcome until this nation plummets into a third-world country.

When the non-producers and their enablers(demcong) have the ability to vote themselves the largesse of the public trough, then there is no incentive for them not to.

The fact that BHO has already stated that he is going to raise taxes on the ‘evil rich’, nationalize the oil industry, give us nationalized healthcare, tax us for breathing because we all have a carbon footprint and what ever he and the leftists in congress can come up with to garner votes to stay in power, sends chills up and down my spine and really makes my sphincter muscles quiver. Add to that the appointment at least three(3) leftist activist judges for the Supreme court. I don’t see any recovery from the devastation for generations.

McVain on the other hand has already defined himself differently from BHO in that he wants to open up drilling off-shore, drilling in shale, getting the PORK out of legislation and continue to make sure that this country is made as safe as possible from another terrorist attack. I’ll take my chances with McCain over the absolute disaster in the making with BHO.

BTW, speaking of who pays the bills, if you follow the link you can find out where you were wrt taxes for 2006 and can extrapolate for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 and see how you are going to fare when the demcong really get in charge.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

You can do as you see fit and if you decide that it is better to stay home or even vote for Obama-lama-ding-dong, then you should be very proud of that fact and when your children or grandchildren ask how come they have such high taxes and when you are retired and have a life threatning disease, like treatable cancer, and the nationalized healthcare policy determines that it would cost less to let you opt for physician assisted suicide than pay for chemo-therapy, you can look back and be proud that you helped make that a reality.

Have a nice day!

belad on July 31, 2008 at 11:39 PM

It will only take two(2) years of Obama-lama-ding-dong and a super-majority congress to give the country two(2) generations of socialism that will not be overcome until this nation plummets into a third-world country.

And it survived 5 years of LBJ…and four years of Carter…and 8 years of Clinton…how exactly?

Oh yeah. All those times were building towards 2008. NOW if the Dems win, it’s the end of Western civilization.

Do you realize how much you sound like Al Gore talking about the environment? Jesus tap dancing christ!

MadisonConservative on July 31, 2008 at 11:42 PM

belad on July 31, 2008 at 11:39 PM

I’m not unsympathetic to your position. Bambi can do lots of damage.

I would only say that we can undo just about anything that Bambi can do. Except amnesty, and McSquish is on board with that. And again, I’d rather Bambi get blamed for amnesty and the sky-rocketing energy prices that he and McSquish with both cause with their fight against the global warming hoax.

And like MadCon said, America is resilient. Will Bambi be more destructive than FDR was? It’s hard to imagine.

We’ve got to reverse the Congressional tide. McCain has shown no desire or ability to do that.

It’s two crappy choices.

misterpeasea on July 31, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Thanks Ed. I needed that.

Griz on August 1, 2008 at 12:01 AM

We could apply this same reasoning throughout the world on every topic. Imagine impoverished third world-nations and what they could do if they balanced their demand for food. Why if only these people would not be selfish and timid and just learn to consume less food. /sarcasm

shick on August 1, 2008 at 7:04 AM

You can do as you see fit and if you decide that it is better to stay home or even vote for Obama-lama-ding-dong, then you should be very proud of that fact and when your children or grandchildren ask how come they have such high taxes and when you are retired and have a life threatning disease, like treatable cancer, and the nationalized healthcare policy determines that it would cost less to let you opt for physician assisted suicide than pay for chemo-therapy, you can look back and be proud that you helped make that a reality.

Have a nice day!

belad on July 31, 2008 at 11:39 PM

Oh, he will.

wise_man on August 1, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Old sayin’, “those who don’t remember history, are doomed to repeat it”. Any day now I expect to see B. HUSSEIN sit at a desk, with an old reliable CARDIGAN on, thermostat turned up, giving all GOOD AMERICANS pointers on how to COPE with energy shortages… Boy, the good old days…

pueblo1032 on August 1, 2008 at 11:13 AM

New Bumper Sticker: Let them eat cake / Let them inflate.

Ned on August 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM

Indeed, pueblo1032.

Don’t forget to inflate your tires!

wise_man on August 1, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Oh, he will.

wise_man on August 1, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Would you quit stalking me, _man?

misterpeasea on August 1, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Your mockery of me falls on deaf ears, misterpeasea.

wise_man on August 1, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Your mockery of me falls on deaf ears, misterpeasea.

wise_man on August 1, 2008 at 12:58 PM

You’re deaf too? Gosh, _man, if you were also blind, you could be a Pinball Wizard.

misterpeasea on August 1, 2008 at 1:00 PM

your constant mockery of me is not appreciated. Please stop.

wise_man on August 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Your constant stalking of me is not appreciated. Please stop.

misterpeasea on August 1, 2008 at 1:40 PM

You can bet that Carter is pulling for Obama to win the election. I am sure he sees a chance to get rid of the “worst president ever” tag that he earned.

duff65 on August 1, 2008 at 3:22 PM

You lose. Good day, sir.

MadisonConservative on July 31, 2008 at 6:20 PM

On the contrary, MadisonConservative. Your continued reluctance to say what you intend, suggests very strongly — doesn’t prove, but suggests — that you don’t want to say. And the fact that you strongly oppose McCain, but don’t want to say what you do believe, suggests — doesn’t prove, but suggests — that you’re actually a plant from the Obama campaign.

I don’t have proof, and wise_man didn’t claim he had proof; but you’re marked, sir, and we don’t trust you.

B’bye.

philwynk on August 1, 2008 at 3:53 PM

And it survived 5 years of LBJ…and four years of Carter…and 8 years of Clinton…how exactly?

The institutions of the nation were stronger in the minds of the electorate during LBJ’s tenure, and his presidency was crippled by an unpopular war. Still, as a result of LBJ’s incompetence, the nation spent $6 trillion on a fruitless “War on Poverty” that produced worse poverty than it solved.

Under Carter, the nation fell into a deep economic malaise, and suffered defeat at the hands of international enemies; we recovered quickly when a sensible conservative took the helm.

We survived 8 years of Clinton because Clinton’s incompetence and obvious criminality drove the electorate to throw the Democrats out of Congress and replace them with conservative Republicans for the first time in 44 years. From that moment forward, Clinton was hobbled by the need to win cooperation of some sort from a majority Republican Congress, with the result that the nation got the most liberal version of every Conservative proposal (which is what finally rescued us from LBJ’s hideous “War on Poverty,”) rather than getting liberal proposals.

The situation is very, very different today. We have an electorate that’s disillusioned with the Republicans in Congress, a wave of young voters who, for the first time in US history, have no foundation whatsoever in American history, nor understanding of the foundations of American liberty. And, we have a neo-Marxist presidential candidate pretending to be a centrist (but barely telling us what he intends to do.) Give that man a Democratic Congress, and he’ll cede our national sovereignty to the UN faster than you can say “Karl Marx.” And then, once he’s done that (and probably wrecked the US economy, which could not possibly sustain today the sort of damage that Johnson heaped on it back in 1964), he’ll probably ascend to Secretary-General of the UN, where he can rule the whole world.

This is not, by far, an impossible scenario.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political/cultural blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture.” Thanks.)

philwynk on August 1, 2008 at 4:04 PM

I don’t have proof, and wise_man didn’t claim he had proof; but you’re marked, sir, and we don’t trust you.

B’bye.

philwynk on August 1, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Who the hell are you, and who are you to call me a liar? You either show some proof, or don’t you ever dare to address me like that again.

MadisonConservative on August 1, 2008 at 4:14 PM

Your continued reluctance to say what you intend…

philwynk on August 1, 2008 at 3:53 PM

I don’t know who you are, but I haven’t seen you ask a single question of me. Maybe you should actually ask something before you accuse me of being “reluctant” to say something.

MadisonConservative on August 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Wow. Here I thought _man had embarrassed off all his defenders.

misterpeasea on August 1, 2008 at 6:53 PM

Dear Leader will recast Carter as a prophet and great president.

James on August 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM

And it survived 5 years of LBJ…and four years of Carter…and 8 years of Clinton…how exactly?

Oh yeah. All those times were building towards 2008. NOW if the Dems win, it’s the end of Western civilization.

Do you realize how much you sound like Al Gore talking about the environment? Jesus tap dancing christ!

MadisonConservative on July 31, 2008 at 11:42 PM

Some of the predictions of disaster under President Obama are a little overheated, but I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to suggest that the cumulative effects of untrammeled liberalism might be worse under BO than LBJ. For one thing, the War on Terror is a very different beast, economically and culturally, than the Cold War was. The world of the 60s and 70s had certain global political aspects that held Americans together, while the 2000s is an era in which a sizable portion of the American left either denies the enemy exists at all, or feels comfortable siding with them openly, something relatively rare among public figures and rank-and-file Democrats even in the turbulent late 60s.

Add into the mix the complete inexperience of Obama, something that definitely could not be said about LBJ. Johnson was an SOB, a socialist, and many other things, but if I might indulge in a cheap shot, he knew how many states America had, and he could answer questions about his policies without dissolving into helpless stammering.

Above all, I believe the accumulated effects of socialism have led us very close to a systemic crash. Today’s gas price crisis may prove to have been a fortunate and unexpected early warning, if they help keep Obama out of office (and after watching the “blackout Congress” the last couple of days, I begin to wonder if a Democrat-controlled Congress is truly a foregone conclusion.) We’ve known for decades that Medicare is headed for disaster, with an even greater crash of Social Security right behind it, and we’re within 3 or 4 election cycles of that crash beginning. Obama could bring it faster, and make it much worse… and I’m not at all confident it would result in liberalism becoming decisively discredited. The ratio of taxpayers to tax consumers has become hopelessly lopsided, and the uneducated blind rage of the consumers will be a frightening phenomenon, when their government-provided goodies are taken away from them.

I wouldn’t be sanguine about our ability to “reverse anything Bambi does,” either. Reversing state-run health care would take decades, and a mountain of corpses. I would prefer to spare my countrymen that suffering, so I will hold my nose and vote McCain. Maybe I can do it without holding my nose too hard, if he picks the right veep.

Doctor Zero on August 2, 2008 at 10:37 AM

I see that _man has taken an extra glass of GOP-aid

because, wise_man dumb_ass, it IS fun to insult you..

DaveC on August 2, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Some of the predictions of disaster under President Obama are a little overheated, but I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to suggest that the cumulative effects of untrammeled liberalism might be worse under BO than LBJ. For one thing, the War on Terror is a very different beast, economically and culturally, than the Cold War was. The world of the 60s and 70s had certain global political aspects that held Americans together, while the 2000s is an era in which a sizable portion of the American left either denies the enemy exists at all, or feels comfortable siding with them openly, something relatively rare among public figures and rank-and-file Democrats even in the turbulent late 60s.

This I will agree with. However, I don’t think it’s accurate to dismiss the anti-American sentiment that was being brewed under all of the revolutionary movements at home. Let’s not forget that that while we in the last 10 years have experienced 9/11, many bombings on our soil against public buildings were perpetrated by such as the SDS and similar organizations.

Add into the mix the complete inexperience of Obama, something that definitely could not be said about LBJ. Johnson was an SOB, a socialist, and many other things, but if I might indulge in a cheap shot, he knew how many states America had, and he could answer questions about his policies without dissolving into helpless stammering.

Completely agree about Obama’s being a worthless, cretinous dipstick, if I may be outright insulting about the little worm. However, to be fair, was there a media like we have today watching each and every one of LBJ’s speeches? I’m sure he said more than a few things that would have stunned people if he was under the microscope of YouTube and the blogosphere.

As for the rest, I can only agree to disagree. Your assumption belies the presence of a republican-led Congress which, as you implied, seems more and more likely after the protest yesterday.

I know many argue about justices. Well, our choices there are kind of meaningless. First off, if Obama wins, he puts liberals up. Likely we’ll have GOP regain control, and they’ll be fought to the teeth. I might also add that the oldest and most likely judges to die or retire are liberals, so if they’re replaced with liberals, conservatives still have 5 over 4.

Secondly, if McCain wins, the odds are no better. He puts through strict constitution readers, and the Dems fight him tooth and nail. However, unlike Obama, he will be more likely to “work with Democrats” and come up with “compromises”, which will more likely mean liberal-leaners. No gain there. So, either way, the SCOTUS will be at risk.

Also remember that, while this is going to be pure political game playing, IF republicans gain Congress, after they’ve put up with 8 years of impeachment threats, don’t you think they’re going to be holding the Messiah under a magnifying glass to nail him at the first chance? Personally, I think he’ll make a major mistake within the first couple of years he’s in office, and if the GOP has as much guts as it did yesterday, they’ll nail the prick to the wall. The problem with Bush-hating Dems, and I mean the REAL haters, is that they bring scurrilous claims that are little based on the law, and more on emotionally charged accusations. The GOP will be looking for clear-cut charges, and I am confident that it won’t take much to get them.

You’ve got a 9% congressional approval rating. Frankly, regardless of who gets the White House, a congressional shift is damn near foregone. That’s a much bigger issue than one seat on Pennsylvania Avenue.

MadisonConservative on August 2, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Secondly, if McCain wins, the odds are no better. He puts through strict constitution readers, and the Dems fight him tooth and nail. However, unlike Obama, he will be more likely to “work with Democrats” and come up with “compromises”, which will more likely mean liberal-leaners. No gain there. So, either way, the SCOTUS will be at risk.

I agree that McCain’s SCOTUS picks will likely be mediocre, and Obama’s will be horrible, especially since Obama’s fecklessness and naivete will make him very easy for the hard left to manipulate. A couple of Obama Supreme Court justices could make precedents that will breed more bad decisions for a generation or two, and it will likely be decades before those justices could be replaced. SCOTUS isn’t my top reason for doing Whatever It McTakes to Stop Obama right now, but it’s definitely on the list, as long as we have the kind of imperial judiciary we live under today.

Also remember that, while this is going to be pure political game playing, IF republicans gain Congress, after they’ve put up with 8 years of impeachment threats, don’t you think they’re going to be holding the Messiah under a magnifying glass to nail him at the first chance?

I’d feel better about that idea if the kind of guts we saw from the GOP yesterday were the rule, rather than the exception. An Obama victory will be taken by the MSM, and the arbiters of pop culture, as a complete validation of the Obama cult of personality. A GOP Congress that wants to stand up to BO had better get used to seeing endless cartoons of itself wearing white sheets and carrying a burning cross. It’s hard enough to oppose the emotional sales tactics of socialism as it is, with an electorate composed of nearly 60% tax consumers. The guy who leads that feisty GOP resistance is going to become known as the heartless bastard who doesn’t want poor kids to get free health care, and only opposes the glories of Obama’s trillion dollar giveaway plans because he’s a kloset kleagle out to stick it to our dashing and heroic minority president. Not even the Gingrich Congress had the cohesion and morale to hold together under that kind of sustained assault.

You’ve got a 9% congressional approval rating. Frankly, regardless of who gets the White House, a congressional shift is damn near foregone. That’s a much bigger issue than one seat on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Getting either house of Congress back would be huge, but that’s more of a longshot than McCain winning the presidency at this point. I also wouldn’t underestimate how dangerous Democrats are when they sit in the White House. They know how to use that power ruthlessly, and they have that gigantic media cheering section… Bush’s economy post-9/11 has been called “The Greatest Story Never Told” for a good reason. Everything bad that happens through the middle of Obama’s first term will be squarely pinned on the GOP, and as for the alternative media, remember that one of Obama’s top priorities will be the Fairness Doctrine. There’s nothing the Dems want more than getting their media monopoly back, and a couple of years of Obama plus a Democrat Congress can make that happen. I feel that we’re too close to one of socialism’s doomsday scenarios, most likely nationalized health care but possibly nationalized energy, to take any chances walking on the tightrope.

Doctor Zero on August 2, 2008 at 11:11 PM

I also wouldn’t underestimate how dangerous Democrats are when they sit in the White House.
Doctor Zero on August 2, 2008 at 11:11 PM

Aw, come on. It can’t be that bad. After all, we can undo just about anything that Bambi can do. It might take a few decades, but that’s not that big a deal. Come on.

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 10:55 AM

I also wouldn’t underestimate how dangerous Democrats are when they sit in the White House. They know how to use that power ruthlessly, and they have that gigantic media cheering section… Bush’s economy post-9/11 has been called “The Greatest Story Never Told” for a good reason. Everything bad that happens through the middle of Obama’s first term will be squarely pinned on the GOP, and as for the alternative media, remember that one of Obama’s top priorities will be the Fairness Doctrine. There’s nothing the Dems want more than getting their media monopoly back, and a couple of years of Obama plus a Democrat Congress can make that happen. I feel that we’re too close to one of socialism’s doomsday scenarios, most likely nationalized health care but possibly nationalized energy, to take any chances walking on the tightrope.

I’m trying not to sound condescending here, but DOOMSDAY scenario? That sounds more like a Kerry supporter in 2004 having a nervous breakdown post-election day. Again, it is one man, who will have a congress that will likely be retaken by the Republicans due to the fact that it is currently the lowest rated Congress in history. The situations would be a Republican congress fighting Obama, or a Democrat congress leading McCain by the nose.

And, as some continue to ignore, It was less than 10 years ago that we finished two terms of a Democrat in the White House. How, suddenly, did the idea of a Democrat being back in there turn from a 50/50 chance that we work with to doomsday scenario with effects that will last DECADES?

Not necessarily referring to you, but it seems almost like some of the Ron Paul nuts dreaming of police state dystopias have started arguing versus Obama. Sure, he won’t be a picnic, but neither was Clinton. It’s not the end of the nation if he manages to get the White House, even though at this point I’m pretty confident that with or without the votes of the people who don’t like him, McCain is probably going to take it. The last reason to support a candidate is because of some perceived nightmare scenario of the opponent turning the nation into the next Soviet Union. It’s utterly irrational, and conservatives aren’t supposed to be subject to that kind of frivolous fantasizing. We leave that to all the lib nutroots who promised us that a second Bush term GUARANTEED A DRAFT.

MadisonConservative on August 3, 2008 at 11:23 AM

arguing versus Obama? Yeah. What a ridiculous thing to do .. those silly people. Obama is going to be fine. And all these things that people keep bringing up about Obama? ridiculous. It’s going to be fine. Fine I tell you.

I think we all need to take our daily dose of Tryphorgetin.

It’s not just for Hillary supporters anymore.

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM

arguing versus Obama? Yeah. What a ridiculous thing to do .. those silly people. Obama is going to be fine. And all these things that people keep bringing up about Obama? ridiculous. It’s going to be fine. Fine I tell you.

I think we all need to take our daily dose of Tryphorgetin.

It’s not just for Hillary supporters anymore.

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Straw man, I see. Hypocrite.

My emphasis was not on the arguing against Obama. My emphasis was on who was doing it:

Ron Paul nuts dreaming of police state dystopias

Arguing against Obama because of his policy positions, his lying, and his connections are one thing. Saying he needs to be defeated because America will collapse after a quarter millennium because of a couple of years under a democrat is the kind of thing Alex Jones would be spewing. As I said, irrational

doomsday scenarios

…are the thing of the left. When did conservatives start buying into “victory or annihilation”? Are you going to threaten to leave the country if Obama wins? Are you going to claim the election was stolen? Jeezus. Hillary was at the reins for eight years, and eight years of Bush made it seem like it never happened. There is a gigantic perspective deficiency for some here.

MadisonConservative on August 3, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Are you going to promise to leave the country if McCain wins?

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Are you going to promise to leave the country if McCain wins?

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 6:16 PM

No. I’d love to hear you explain why you considered I would, without defaulting to your typical doubting of conservative credentials of anyone who doesn’t pledge their soul to Captain Amnesty.

MadisonConservative on August 3, 2008 at 6:21 PM

I’d love to hear you explain why you considered I would threaten to leave.

without defaulting to your typical strawman argument of anyone who dares to support the republican primary winner.

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 7:19 PM

I’d love to hear you explain why you considered I would threaten to leave.

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 7:19 PM

I’m sick of your crap. You posed the question, explain why. You’re reminding me of a scientologist by always turning things around on the person calling you out.

MadisonConservative on August 3, 2008 at 7:25 PM

Wow. Unbelievable. at 5:45 PM you asked me “Are you going to claim the election was stolen?” And now you are feigning outrage that I turned your lame question that you first posed – directed to me – back around to you. And you think you are calling me out?

You are living in a fantasy land.

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 8:28 PM

Wow. Unbelievable. at 5:45 PM you asked me “Are you going to claim the election was stolen?” And now you are feigning outrage that I turned your lame question that you first posed – directed to me – back around to you. And you think you are calling me out?

You are living in a fantasy land.

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 8:28 PM

Answer a question yourself, you coward. Answer the f***ing question, and I’ll answer any question you want. That’s called tit for tat, and only cowardly little punks like you play back and forth. Answer the question. You claim the damage that will be done by Obama will take decades to overcome, so will you leave?

MadisonConservative on August 3, 2008 at 8:55 PM

There I went again. I responded, and it’s gotten to this.

I’ll state this simply.

I am a conservative who will not give support to an amnesty shill, CFR supporter, global warming policy baser, anti-Gitmo, anti-tax-cut candidate regardless of party, because that candidate is, by those positions, a liberal.

cretin_man, you are a scared child believing Obama is the antichrist because you’re a gullible nitwit, and you believe that McCain will deliver us from doomsday. You’re the same as an Obama supporter in that you attack anyone who criticizes your candidate, regardless of the fact that the criticisms are true. You call them liars even when they provide proof of the claims, even in the candidate’s own words. You’re a shill, which people have pointed out over and over, and you’re one of the most arrogant, self-centered, narcissistic people on this board, evidenced by the delusions of grandeur you have that make you believe anyone who dislikes McCain is somehow conspiring against you for the purpose of God knows what.

FOAD. Google it.

MadisonConservative on August 3, 2008 at 9:08 PM

what an annoying little insect you are.

wise_man on August 3, 2008 at 9:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3