Here’s the other thing about Rush, the man does have a bit of a temper. I know alot of his show is scripted and he does well in terms of preparation. But there have been times where he’s gotten mad or maybe forgotten himself and said some really un-PC things. I wonder if Obama isn’t trying to goad him into saying something really jacked up about Obama, now that the rest of the media will be listening to him for his “response”.

Then there’s the other possibility, that Rush is who we thought he is. Purely a businessman with no interest in victory for conservatism. If so he’ll plan out some offensive thing that will get him even more media attention, ratings, will polzarize his listernership but probably get alot of them to pay for his membership club. The test will be Monday.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 25, 2009 at 9:40 AM

And you fail to understand that the entire nature of American politics is rapid change. Political parties were actually far more influential prior to the introduction of the secret ballot than they are now–but your lot is trying to change that with card check so that you could once again have the union or party boss standing over their thralls’ shoulders to make sure they vote properly.

That’s not what the card check law does. It says if you sign a union membership card that’s a “vote” for the union. Currently management wants the long period between cards and the vote in order to fire those workers who organized the card signing and union bust in general. But that’s off topic, not sure why you brought it up.

I’ll agree that political parties are more entrenched in ideology now, but we saw fairly radical internal change in the Republican Party following 1976 with the ascension of the Reagan wing and in the Democratic Party in 1972 as your lot began to take over the party

LOL what an *interesting* take on the history. First of all what I meant by entrenched wasn’t philosophical it was more organisational. But I actually think this is an important point, in the 19th century people *were* philosophically entrenced in politics, the Liberty Party really truly beleivedin abolitionism. Now, there’s almost NO philosophical entrenchment among Democrats or Republicans, they merely want to control the levers of power. Republicans pander to the christian, white working class base but what exactly have they delivered for them? Not one single thing emerged from Republican rule from 2001-2007 on gay marriage, abortion, illegal immigration, halting multi-culturalism, subsidizing independent farmers, healthcare for working families, etc. etc. etc. Democrats pander to progressives and racial minorities and with the exception of representation in positions of power I can’t think of a thing a Democratic President has done for African Americans, though we’ve only had two since the Voting Rights Act (not coincidental I might add, but that’s for the second half). It’s this total LACK of philosophical entrenchment and the overwhelming amount of politicians who are entrenched in their access to power that makes what you describe pretty impossible.

Now I have to take a point of order on your description of what happened to the Democrats and Republicans after WWII. When you say the leftists took over the Democratic party, don’t you mean the anti-segregationists took over the Democratic Party? Isn’t that why Lott, Helms, Thurmond switched sides? Since the end of the Civil War southern Democrats worked tirelessly to maintain a subservient African American (and poor white) population to work cotton fields, we don’t have to go into all the ways that went down but Emmit Till wasn’t really all that unique if you know what I mean.

But post Civil Rights Movement (which those same Southern Democrats often referred to as “communist” and “radical” hmmm) something had to give in the Democratic Party. Republicans saw an opportunity, appealed to “states rights” rhetoric that southerners had used to argue against Federal Civil Rights Bills. “It’s totally a state decision to decide who can vote y’all” and wammo, GOP suddenly surges to power in the south, George Wallace, and a bunch of Dixiecrats switch parties. Now you might say “see DeathToMediaHacks, that proves how fast political parties can change.” And I’d say, but was there a fundamental change or merely a shift in titles. You say the left wingers took over the Democrats, but who in the 80s was fighting for severe penalties for crack cocaine, longer prison sentences, the Democratic congress. Who signed DOMA, Welfare Reform into law a Democratic President. No the Democrats just decided to allign themselves with northern, rather than southern power in an attempt to get the votes of racial minorities.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 25, 2009 at 9:58 AM

oh crap, I hope that last post is readable due to block quote mishaps.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 25, 2009 at 10:02 AM

No…I mean when the leftists took over. By 1972 segregation was already the law of the land–in fact by that time, the more violent incidents of racial violence were taking place north of the Mason-Dixon Line: Boston, Newark, Detroit–I can go on if you want…but you get the point.

I do and you can even go back to the fifties when a bunch of major Democratically controlled cities attempted to integrate public housing/white neighborhoods and we got some insight into the way domestic terrorism isn’t just a southern thing. But at least those Democratic mayors made the attempt to integrate, you have to give them that. But you’re blurring things. Yes there were racists in the North, but the same philosophy undergirded “law and order” mayors like Frank Rizzo and Ronald Reagan when he launched his Presidential campaign in the south with a speech on state’s rights. In both cases conservative whites were engaged in a backlash against the gains of the civil rights movement. But Rizzo, Dalye et al were local phenomenon. On a national basis the GOP made a move towards the southern segregationist base, they just could no longer use the populist terms for these issues. “Integration” was replaced with “welfare” as the race baiting boogeyman. We all remember Reagan’s “welfare queens” don’t we?

In 1972, the McGovern wing led deliberately shifted the Democratic Party away from the strong foreign policy positions of the Scoop Jackson wing of the party and, aligned with the growing counterculture youth movement in academia as well as coopting racial minorities through encouraging dependency on the government through the dole

You’re right about the counterculture, wrong about racial minorities and dependancy, but that’s probably a whole other LONG discussion. All I’ll say is that welfare exists in our society and has since the civil war. However, welfare is only DEMONIZED in our society when people feel it goes to the “undeserving poor” Inevitably, the undeserving poor tend to be a little browner than the majority. *ducks the oncoming shit storm*. But you are correct that in 1972 the dems had a brief experiment in progressivism that didn’t work and was rejected as a strategy pretty much until 2008. Carter a progressive? No way. Now he is, but in office he was just like Clinton, he actually ran against his own party for much of his Presidency if you remember. And Clinton as a progressive? My keyboard is mad that I even typed the sentence. So no the leftwingers did not take over the party, they had a brief moment in the sun and were subsequently stomped out.

All you Democrats did was encourage African Americans to participate in another form of sharecropping–so stop cloaking yourself in that sanctimonious civil rights cloak of yours–it’s bogus and you know it.

If you read my quote I said that Democrats pander to African Americans and don’t do much for them. I also said that the GOP panders to white, working class social conservatives and hasn’t done jack for them either. You only seem to call ONE form of political pandering sharecropping even though, historically, we know that the southern white poor were also sharecroppers.

The Democratic Congress was forced to enact all of those measure in the 1980s because of Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator’s, effective use of the bully pulpit to reach out to their constituents who made their voices quite clear. Had they not done so, you might have seen a Republican congress long before 1994. Clinton also had to be dragged kicking and screaming into signing DOMA due to the pressure put on by the Republican who had taken over the House and by constituents.

Wait a minute, are you admitting that conservatism has been the driving force behind federal policy for the last 30 years. You’re actually admitting that! This is huge, it’s something that folks on your side are LOATH to admit these days since all around us is the evidence of why corporatist Federal policy is bad bad bad for the economy in the long run. Why Reagan’s edicts that it was cool to go into debt as long as you consumed were great for wall street in the 80s, shitty for main street in the long term. Why claiming that American workers had “priced themselves out” so you could send manufacturing overseas definitely increased profit, and made sure that when a downturn came we wouldn’t be able to even choose to buy American and support our nation’s businesses. Yes, conservative philosophy HAS been running the show for quite a while, thanks!

DeathToMediaHacks on January 25, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Daley…Rizzo…Boston…Detroit…Newark…Watts…that’s a lot of exceptions–you Yankee progressives sure have a lot of exceptions–but then, I’m just a dumb Southern redneck, so what do I know.

I never called you that (nor did I know until now what region of the country you were from) you clearly are not ignorant, why must you engage in faux outrage and strawmen?

And you speak of states rights as if its a bad thing–personally, I think it’s a great idea–and as Jefferson and Madison agree with me, I’m more than happy in their company than yours. We need more states standing up for Article Ten against a ever encroaching and restrictive Federal government. It’s past time for us to take power back away from the Federal government and put it where it belongs–in the hands of the states, local communities, and the people–and conservatism is the movement that best espouses those values.

Perhaps you can understand why me, an African American, am not comforted by those who proclaim “states rights.” The history of that particular phrase as a rallying cry for politics has normally been followed by calls for white supremacy, segregation and the justification of violence against those who seek to oppose those things. Maybe you’re right. Were you alive in 1965 would you support the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Perhaps, by the 1980s the principles of “states rights” were totally seperated from three centuries of effort to ensure a racial minority would be permanent non-citizen laborers creating wealth for a white planter, then business class. But then we know it took a major protest on the national mall in 1980 to get MLK Jrs birthday a Federal holiday and most GOP Senators voted against it. But you’re right the southern states right mantra, totally not about race at all.

No, you Democrats don’t pander to minorities–you enserf them with programs and doles, turning them into dependents with you as the paternalistic massa.

Strong claim, any evidence?

We conservatives, who embrace individual rights rather than identity and collective rights,on the other hand, believe in equal opportunity–not equal outcome. A good example of this is Jack Kemp’s “Enterprise Zones” encouraging the development of minority small businesses and individual (there’s that dirty word to you progressives) initiative (that’s another dirty word to you lot).

Um care to point to some laws Republican lawmakers have passed (outside of Nixon) that actually DO something like that? I won’t hold my breath.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 25, 2009 at 1:26 PM