Limbaugh: Obama should have invited “genuine conservatives” to dinner

posted at 4:34 pm on January 23, 2009 by Allahpundit

Part two of his interview with Hannity; the fun starts halfway through the first clip of, if you prefer, three-quarters of the way down here. I’m amused that Hannity names David Brooks as an example of a right-wing antagonist on a day when Brooks, more than anyone else who was at that dinner, is holding The One’s feet to the fire about what a piece of shinola the stimulus bill is. The other attendees, like Noonan, are too consumed with the glory of the inauguration. Even Krauthammer, a perpetual favorite of Hot Air commenters, is starting to draw grumbles.

Limbaugh’s right, of course, that Obama was there to coopt his critics, not to be persuaded, but as I said earlier, that’s par for the course for The One. It’s the gesture of listening to the other side that he’s after, not absorbing or acting on any of their ideas. I wonder if he reminded them over dessert that he won. Exit question: Which would you prefer, Obama-brand “bipartisanship” or straight-up, James-Clyburn-style “you’ll take it and like it” honesty?



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ares on January 23, 2009 at 6:48 PM

Apple is and always has been mismanaged. They have (money makers) the iPod and the iPhone, but their core The Mac is a drain.

– The Cat

MirCat on January 23, 2009 at 6:52 PM

What’s your rationale here? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear?

Ares on January 23, 2009 at 6:43 PM

Absolutely not. Although, ideally, you should not have anything to fear or hide. As a matter of fact, irregular rendition, is used everywhere, not just here. There are many cases that go back to the 1980’s.

There is only one case where a US citizen was wrongly accused that I can remember. I think he was in Spain and got caught up in that. I think he’s a rich man today after the lawsuit.

If this was a chronic condition, happening to lots of people, then I would agree, but it’s not. It has worked to keep us safe. Just the world we live in, and I have no fear.

Kini on January 23, 2009 at 6:54 PM

MirCat on January 23, 2009 at 6:38 PM

Well that was 8, and they’re all valid. #9 is a little iffy though. Good job :-)

Oldnuke on January 23, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Buy Danish on January 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Not sure about this but I think he actually admitted to over medicating and he pointed out that this is what he had to do to get the symptoms that Rush described. This just validated Limbaugh’s point.

Oldnuke on January 23, 2009 at 7:03 PM

There is only one case where a US citizen was wrongly accused that I can remember. I think he was in Spain and got caught up in that. I think he’s a rich man today after the lawsuit.

One is too many, and a successful lawsuit and payout does not legitimize the fact that that person was kidnapped by a government. It’s a slippery slope and I wonder how you and your family would feel if that was you – the accidental victim.

If this was a chronic condition, happening to lots of people, then I would agree, but it’s not. It has worked to keep us safe. Just the world we live in, and I have no fear.

Kini on January 23, 2009 at 6:54 PM

We have no idea how many people it has happened to do we? And how many mistakes were made.

Is this an erosion of civil liberties and an affront to the Constitution? Absolutely.

Ares on January 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Hey, we should always appreciate gestures. Obama isn’t that stupid, he can count and he knows that nearly 60 million did not vote for him. he also knows that it would have been a lot more than that if conservatives had not been so dispirited this year.

rockmom on January 23, 2009 at 7:11 PM

MirCat on January 23, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Doesn’t matter in any case since a stock drop is not a sign of irreplaceability. Apple will do just fine without Jobs, possibly even better. The idea that any one person cannot be replaced is ridiculous in the extreme.

Oldnuke on January 23, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Rush is a tool for:

1. Being a Conservative

2. Being Rich

3. Being Successful

4. Being a Celebrity

5. Going through Rehab and Not Relapsing

6. Being Confident

7. Being Generous

8. Making Harry Reid look like a Fool during ‘LetterGate’

9. Etc Etc

MirCat on January 23, 2009 at 6:38 PM

10. Being a DIE HARD PITTSBURGH STEELERS FAN!

ProudPalinFan on January 23, 2009 at 7:15 PM

We have no idea how many people it has happened to do we? And how many mistakes were made.

Ares on January 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM

We have a very loud and vocal media that hated 43 to no end. If this really was an invasion of civil liberties, then you would hear howls from every corner of the left, the ACLU, democrats nutcases.

But that has never happened. And a quick google of Extraordinary rendition clearly shows it’s been used to stop terrorist.

Mistakes will be made. Read Here.

But that is the exception to the norm.

Kini on January 23, 2009 at 7:15 PM

We have a very loud and vocal media that hated 43 to no end. If this really was an invasion of civil liberties, then you would hear howls from every corner of the left, the ACLU, democrats nutcases.

But that has never happened. And a quick google of Extraordinary rendition clearly shows it’s been used to stop terrorist.

Mistakes will be made. Read Here.

But that is the exception to the norm.

You show a truly touching faith in government.

How about this quote from your article?

A few weeks later, Mayfield was released after the FBI admitted it had made a mistake and that the fingerprint did not match Mayfield’s.

Are you willing to accept that as the status quo?

Here’s another example of out of control government power ranged against the rest of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Ares on January 23, 2009 at 7:31 PM

Rush Limbaugh is wrong in his assessment of George W. Bush. I thought it strange that he threw in the face of Sean Hannity, “..I know McCain is a friend of yours, but…”. Its strange to me to hear Rush (who I love like a Brother) brutalize McCain yet he goes soft on “W”. Its weird! Both McCain and Bush have been equally responsible for literally destroying the GOP! And the Conservative Movement!

“Hey Rush Baby! George W. Bush has no respect for you. He and K. Rove have used you, dude! Snap out of it! You’ve drifted off on a tangent. You’ve become distracted.” Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on January 23, 2009 at 7:36 PM

You show a truly touching faith in government.

Ares on January 23, 2009 at 7:31 PM

In this government, yes indeed.

I’ve lived in many different countries and I can assure you there a many safeguards here, than over there.

Kini on January 23, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Darvin Dowdy on January 23, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Rush has been pretty up front about disliking many of W policies and has said that the President was not a conservative. It’s kind of hard to tell the President of your own party to eat sh!t and die. The most uncomfortable conversation I ever heard was when Mr. Cheney was on the show to promote TARP. Rush was polite but didn’t not get on the bandwagon. I am pretty sure he would treat Mr. Obama the same way, polite with no endorsement.

Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 7:42 PM

In this government, yes indeed.

I’ve lived in many different countries and I can assure you there a many safeguards here, than over there.

Kini on January 23, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Somehow I doubt Mr. Mayfield would share your assessment…

Ares on January 23, 2009 at 7:48 PM

It’s a slippery slope.

The same lazy logic led to Charles De Menezes having his head blown off mistakenly, with a government facing no comeback whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Ares on January 23, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Cindy Munford: true, but there’s an obvious difference in how he deals with McCain and “W”. And you may have a point in that he’s showing respect for the office of President. That may very well be the case. And if thats true, then I’ll allow him that. Ha! But McCain, “W”, Rove and their ilk are Transnational Progressives. They’re not Civic Conservatives (as I believe Rush is-me too). Google those 2 terms, if you like. And there are plenty more “transies” who have a choke hold on “our” GOP. And they must be purged or the GOP will continue to spiral downward at the same accelerated pace. And no one, with a bloody pulpit like Rush, is aggressively going after this cabal of scoundrels. Instead they spend their day telling us what we already know about the seditious democrats! Its imperative that we build a winning GOP team in time for the 2010 midterms and as I see it no one is doing squat. The GOP continues off on its negative tangent. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on January 23, 2009 at 9:14 PM

You can manage out type your 3s, but the original statement was bald and naieve implying you can just sideline all of them.

Ares on January 23, 2009 at 6:48 PM

You’re wrong. And you’re ignoring the context of my original statement. It was about change and getting those who resist change to adapt to the change. And yes, sidelining those who can not be moved to change is possible and effective. I expect that for example, Rush won’t be getting any interviews from Team Obama. He will be sidelined.

Evidently you’ve not worked in an upper-level management position in a company/organization that has had to adapt to much change in operation. When people work in an area for a long time they tend to feel as though they are the custodians and not only resent change but often work to undermine it. For example the constant leaking that came out of the CIA, Pentagon and State. Most of it likely came from careerists who didn’t like the change that was brought about by Bush’s WoT and it took time to sideline them or eliminate them. But they were purged one way or the other.

Texas Gal on January 23, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Darvin Dowdy on January 23, 2009 at 9:14 PM

I listen to him at work. He has decided he is not a Republican anymore. George Bush and his crew did a ton of things that most conservatives couldn’t agree with but he was better than the alternative. Please understand that I don’t ever want to say that again but I think it is unrealistic to believe that you get more than one president in your life time that you can really really get behind all of the time. Obviously for most of us it was Reagan. Just think, there are people who feel that Bill Clinton was the best president ever and good grief think of the numbers who believe it about Mr. Obama at this very moment.

Cindy Munford on January 23, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Well Cindy, I voted for McCain/Palin. I voted for GW Bush 4 times! Yep, I’m from TX and voted for him as gov, too. I’ve always voted for the most conservative candidate. But I believe there are 10-20 million conservatives out there who will not tolerate the GOP’s move back toward the center. The “Stay at Home on Election Day” crowd. Nor will they tolerate the embracement of globalism/ internationalism by the GOP leadership. They realize that “We the People” are losing control of our nation to outside forces, foreign gov’ts and non-governmental org’s. Even the msm seems to have the rapt attention of these elected GOP Rep’s as we, the Base who put them in office, are ignored. These are the concerns that many of us have. I’ll probably join those who stay at home next election if the GOP doesn’t turn from its leftward journey. DD

Darvin Dowdy on January 23, 2009 at 11:50 PM

Rush spoke up for Sarah today on the third hour of his program. Have you noticed that Rush, Sean, and Mark have avoided talking about Sarah very much? I think first they want to focus on the One and secondly they don’t want to pin their hopes on somebody who may prove to be a flash in the pan or a nine day wonder. Rush is too smart for that. It’s better to keep your powder dry. I think what they’re waiting for is Sarah’s speech to CPAC at the end of February to see how well she performs on her own. But for Rush to acknowledge Sarah today and her commitment to fiscal responsibility is a good sign for Sarah and Sarah’s supporters. No conservative agrees completely with everything Rush says but we should be realistic: Rush has an audience of 20m-I’d rather have Rush and that audience on my side than against me. That’s the bottom line.

technopeasant on January 24, 2009 at 12:45 AM

So the Messiah admonishes the GOP Congressmen for listening to Rush Limbaugh who advises the Republicans that they should start acting like conservatives again if they want to get the party and America on track again.

That’s like Hitler telling the German Jews after he was appointed Chancellor in 1933 that the Jews owe their total loyalty to Germany and to not to listen to foreigners who are predicting that if they stay in Germany Hitler will eventually persecute and destroy the Jewish population.

technopeasant on January 24, 2009 at 2:17 AM

Looks like Rush is going to be the Go-to-guy for resistance to Obama. Hopefully Hot Air will follow his lead and sharpen their attacks.

I urge you all to sign up for Rush’s 24/7 package and show your support for his resistance to Obama.

I applaud Rush’s actions here. I too hope the socialist movement fails horribly. I hope Obama leaves office exposed, convicted, defeated, humiliated and laws are passed to ever prevent a similar tragedy from occurring.

Mr Purple on January 24, 2009 at 8:51 AM

Second that notion Mr. Purple… Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, and the rest of the radicals in charge of the house are attempting the ultimate power grab, but they can’t pull it off with the likes of Rush Limbaugh leading the resistance. Many Conservatives with a voice of some kind, take their lead from Rush. Face it folks, several phony Conservatives have held the microphone for several years now. Were they planted Liberals in disguise? Time will tell, but one things for sure; Rush started naming names a while back in 2008. The so called “fairness doctrine” will be a dangerous move for radicals currently in charge of destroying any opposition, so it appears they are going to shelf that plan for a later date and go with a media blitz attack to destroy Rush. One things for sure, take down Rush and the rest will fall. This must be their thought process.

What will we do? Sit back and let this happen, or join forces with Rush and fight back with everything we have. I have been a member of Rush 24/7 for several years now. Certainly this is one way of joining forces. Obama and his crew are counting on the fact that Conservative’s usually go about their daily business and keep to themselves. Not much fight will be expected from us by the Obama crew. They pretty much expect to roll over us with a massive steam roller called the MSM… As for my family; some Liberals local to us will likely get mouthy, and they will also likely get their asses kicked into the gutter shortly after shooting off with the mouth. We have had it up to our ears!

This family will stand with Rush Limbaugh!

Keemo on January 24, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Obama the mass murderer is incapable of James-Clyburn-style “you’ll take it and like it” honesty due to his policies being built on a crap sandwich. If the real B. Hussein Obama, abortionist extraordinaire, ever stood up the riots would begin. When President Bush left the white House honesty left with him.

I’ll third Mr Purple’s [on January 24, 2009 at 8:51 AM] notion because that will be the only place we will be able to learn any truth for quite a while.

DannoJyd on January 24, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Obama the mass murderer is incapable of James-Clyburn-style “you’ll take it and like it” honesty due to his policies being built on a crap sandwich.

Correct. Now we pay for mothers killing their baby sons and baby daughters all over the world. It’s evil but it will be presented as good to the ignoramuses who voted for BO.

Mojave Mark on January 24, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Mojave Mark, I was initially referring to the 21 people [children included] he murdered in Pakistan. We don’t know that he killed anyone guilty of a single thing, and we don’t know that he first contacted the Pakistan government. He certainly didn’t keep his promise ot talking to them first, and where was the contacting the U.N. before committing this probable war crime?

We do know that he killed these people without so much as a ‘by your leave’, and Bush never did anything of the sort.

DannoJyd on January 24, 2009 at 11:13 AM

The One, it seems, has issued a fatwah against El Rushbo. The linked LA Times opinion piece by Mickey Edwards “(full disclosure: he was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation)” could have been written by David Axelrod itself, as forcefully as it pushes the blatant BS that Obama is the Second Coming of Reagan.

On the premise that simple is best, many Republicans have reduced their operating philosophy to two essentials: First, government is bad (it’s “the problem”); second, big government is the worst and small government is better (although because government itself is bad, it may be assumed that small government is only marginally preferable). This is all errant nonsense. It is wrong in every conceivable way and violative of the Constitution, American exceptionalism, freedom, conservatism, Reaganism and common sense.

In America, government is … us. What is “exceptional” about America is the depth of its commitment to the principle of self-government; we elect the government, we replace it or its members when they displease us, and by our threats or support, we help steer what government does.

A shocker: The Constitution, which we love for the limits it places on government power, not only constrains government, it empowers it. Limited government is not no government. And limited government is not “small” government. Simply building roads, maintaining a military, operating courts, delivering the mail and doing other things specifically mandated by the Constitution for America’s 300 million people make it impossible to keep government “small.” It is boundaries that protect freedom. Small governments can be oppressive, and large ones can diminish freedoms. It is the boundaries, not the numbers, that matter.

What would Reagan think of this? Wasn’t it he who warned that government is the problem? Well, permit me. I directed the joint House-Senate policy advisory committees for the Reagan presidential campaign. I was part of his congressional steering committee. I sat with him in his hotel room in Manchester, N.H., the night he won that state’s all-important primary. I knew him before he was governor of California and before I was a member of Congress. Let me introduce you to Ronald Reagan.

Reagan, who spent 16 years in government, actually said this:

“In the present crisis,” referring specifically to the high taxes and high levels of federal spending that had marked the Carter administration, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” He then went on to say: “Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work.” Government, he said, “must provide opportunity.” He was not rejecting government, he was calling — as Barack Obama did Tuesday — for better management of government, for wiser decisions.

This is the difference between ideological advocacy and holding public office: Having accepted partial responsibility for the nation’s well-being, one assumes an obligation that goes beyond bumper-sticker slogans. Certitude is the enemy of wisdom, and in office, it is wisdom, not certitude, that is required.

How, for example, should conservatives react to stimulus and bailout proposals in the face of an economic meltdown? The wall between government and the private sector is an essential feature of our democracy. At the same time, if there is a dominant identifier of conservatism — political, social, psychological — it is prudence.

If proposals seem unworkable or unwise (if they do not contain provisions for taxpayers to recoup their investment; if they do not allow for taxpayers, as de facto shareholders, to insist on sound management practices; if they would allow government officials to make production and pricing decisions), conservatives have a responsibility to resist. But they also have an obligation to propose alternative solutions. It is government’s job — Reagan again — to provide opportunity and foster productivity. With the nation in financial collapse, nothing is more imprudent — more antithetical to true conservatism — than to do nothing.

The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.

Not too long ago, conservatives were thought of as the locus of creative thought. Conservative think tanks (full disclosure: I was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation) were thought of as cutting-edge, offering conservative solutions to national problems. By the 2008 elections, the very idea of ideas had been rejected. One who listened to Barry Goldwater’s speeches in the mid-’60s, or to Reagan’s in the ’80s, might have been struck by their philosophical tone, their proposed (even if hotly contested) reformulation of the proper relationship between state and citizen. Last year’s presidential campaign, on the other hand, saw the emergence of a Republican Party that was anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism’s worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation’s public affairs.

American conservatism has always had the problem of being misnamed. It is, at root, the political twin to classical European liberalism, a freedoms-based belief in limiting the power of government to intrude on the liberties of the people. It is the opposite of European conservatism (which Winston Churchill referred to as reverence for king and church); it is rather the heir to John Locke and James Madison, and a belief that the people should be the masters of their government, not the reverse (a concept largely turned on its head by the George W. Bush presidency).

Over the last several years, conservatives have turned themselves inside out: They have come to worship small government and have turned their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.

But is Barack Obama calling for “better management of government, for wiser decisions,” or is he Carter redux? It seems the latter more than the former. Reagan would most certainly disapprove of American taxpayers funding abortions internationally, including in communist China where they are forced by an oppressive government.

Obama’s tax cuts are the opposite of supply-side economics. He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities. He is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall.

With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity.

Reagan cut domestic spending drastically as President. But the Obama economic plan is so much like Carter’s, he even has the same Fed chairman Paul Volcker.

Rush, Coulter and Rove oppose Obama strictly on policy, and any conservative should. I just don’t get where this Mickey Edwards guy is coming from. If Obama believed in American exceptionalism, I would support him. Instead he behaved like an ass at his inauguration, apologized for our country to Europeans while he campaigned, and his first words at officially taking office were, “Let’s REMAKE America.” He has made it clear how post-partisan his administration will be, and he has yet to advocate a remotely conservative plan.

He is a blatantly Keynesian economist, a corrupt politician who is extremely liberal, the most pro-abortion President since Woodrow Wilson and weak on national defense. I know I am preaching to the choir, but I felt this needs repeating over and over and especially in defense of Rush Limbaugh.

If the opposition has singled him out, maybe we need to rally around our few voices of patriotic dissent and listen to Rush more. For the record, conservatives have provided alternative solutions to the bailouts since the financial crisis hit. The Republican party should dig in their heels, fight the Democratic party’s dubious plans, grab a mike and explain their opposition like Boehner just did and propose workable alternatives. We should not just lay down. Reagan would certainly never have supported that.

chunderroad on January 24, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Though never a huge fan of Bush, I certainly respected him as an honorable President. Since Mickey Edwards touts his creds as a founding trustee of The Heritage Foundation and attacks Bush in his opinion piece, it is worth reading this article on Bush … HIS OVERLOOKED SUCCESSES ON FOREIGN POLICY AND SECURITY

By PETER BROOKES
Posted: 1:50 am
January 11, 2009

We should hope that Obama shows as much character and the courage of his convictions. From what I have heard from him for over two years, though, and judging by this week, I have little reason for optimism.

chunderroad on January 24, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Rush is finding himself in thin company. I hope he doesn’t change.

RalphyBoy on January 24, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Evidently you’ve not worked in an upper-level management position in a company/organization that has had to adapt to much change in operation.

It is because I have that I am deriding your theory and implying you don’t know what you are talking about.

Comparisons with Rush Limbaugh, a pundit, are irrelevant and immaterial.

Ares on January 24, 2009 at 2:17 PM

RalphyBoy on January 24, 2009 at 1:28 PM

He has a bully pulpit with a congregation of 20 million easy.

chunderroad on January 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM

One is too many, and a successful lawsuit and payout does not legitimize the fact that that person was kidnapped by a government. It’s a slippery slope and I wonder how you and your family would feel if that was you – the accidental victim.

Maybe you’ll get picked up next, and if we’re lucky, we’ll never have to hear how you feel about it.

xblade on January 24, 2009 at 4:58 PM

RalphyBoy on January 24, 2009 at 1:28 PM
He has a bully pulpit with a congregation of 20 million easy.

chunderroad on January 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM

True… But I was referring to the lack of balls at his level of play. Lots of backpedaling and soft handedness in the repub leadership and on the talk circuit right now.

RalphyBoy on January 24, 2009 at 6:06 PM

What will we do? Sit back and let this happen, or join forces with Rush and fight back with everything we have. I have been a member of Rush 24/7 for several years now. Certainly this is one way of joining forces. Obama and his crew are counting on the fact that Conservative’s usually go about their daily business and keep to themselves. Not much fight will be expected from us by the Obama crew. They pretty much expect to roll over us with a massive steam roller called the MSM… As for my family; some Liberals local to us will likely get mouthy, and they will also likely get their asses kicked into the gutter shortly after shooting off with the mouth. We have had it up to our ears!

This family will stand with Rush Limbaugh!

Keemo on January 24, 2009 at 9:40 AM

I agree with you 100% there. Conservatives need to stand up and fight Obama publicly and vociferously.

I think it will be particularly effective with Obama since the doesn’t seem to like criticism or protests aimed at him. I suspect he could be manipulated quite a bit by large protests and public opinion turning against him.

Mr Purple on January 25, 2009 at 4:24 AM

Great interview. Rush is right. I’m glad that Sean and Rush are actually talking to each other as I had concerns earlier in the year that there was some sort of private feud or something going on between them.

The real exit question is whether or not the current Republican leadership will actually LISTEN and then HEED Rush’s counsel. Methinks that they won’t, and in the end, it will take a grass roots effort to purge the RINOs out once and for all.

itzWicks on January 25, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Could someone explain the Wellstone thing? I keep hearing that but am not sure what it is. I know it had to do with his death and funeral but not much more…

CCRWM on January 25, 2009 at 3:38 PM

CCRWM on January 25

I believe it had to do with the memorial being used, not to memorialize Paul Wellston, but to call for more rampant liberalism in government and blatant self-aggrandizement on the part of the political attendees. And it wasn’t under the surface either. It was disgustingly obvious.

SKYFOX on January 26, 2009 at 5:50 AM

“Wellston” = “Wellstone”

SKYFOX on January 26, 2009 at 5:50 AM

Thanks Hot Air for the recap.

I listened (not just watching, hearing, or viewing etc.) to as much as possible to the actual interview, but the time difference and work got in the way of listening (for understanding and knowledge).

The chosen bits were appropriate to fill in my gaps, as well as for those who claim to be conservative/Republicans to understand what is about to happen to U.S. if we/they let it.

MSGTAS on January 26, 2009 at 9:14 AM