Rush: If you think Jindal reeked last night, I don’t want to hear from you again
posted at 6:10 pm on February 25, 2009 by Allahpundit
Sounds like Ace and I are now Republican personas non grata. As are an awful lot of commenters in last night’s megathread, I might add.
That’s okay. One of these days Andy Levy and I are going to start a secular, hawkish, (mostly) libertarian third party. You’re all welcome to join.
So, where are we? We as conservatives are in the wilderness, and many of you are hopeless. So we have a guy, Bobby Jindal, 37 years old, first time on the national stage, shows up last night to make a response to The Messiah. All he did was articulate what we believe. All he did was articulate opposition to what Obama is doing, with the obligatory when he’s right, we’ll work with him, just like we worked with Clinton on NAFTA, just like we worked with Clinton on welfare reform after we brought him in. These things happen. It doesn’t mean that we lose our distrust. All Bobby Jindal did was tell us what conservatism is; he used his own life story to do it; he talked about the American people making the country work. He had it all. Now, he may not have done it in the same stylistic way as Obama. I can understand the Democrats trashing the man, just as they trashed Sarah Palin. They are mean-spirited, heartless, horrible winners. But the people on our side are really making a mistake if they go after Bobby Jindal on the basis of style.
Because if you think people on our side, I’m talking to you, those of you who think Jindal was horrible, in fact, I don’t want to hear from you ever again if you think that what Bobby Jindal said was bad or what he said was wrong or not said well, because, folks, style is not going to take our country back. Solid conservatism articulated in a way that’s inspiring and understanding is what’s going to take the country back. Bobby Jindal’s 37 years old. I’ve spoken to him numerous times. He’s brilliant. He’s the real deal. I’m not coming here to defend him, he doesn’t need that. We’re going to have to figure out what we want. Do we want to have somebody in our party who can sound as smart as Obama regardless what he says and convince people to vote for us, or do we believe in a set of principles that defined this country’s founding and will return it to greatness again?
Answer: Both, and it’s amazing that a guy who worships the Great Communicator and whose own net worth has reached nine digits on the strength of his communication skills would pose that as an either/or. Jindal will shake this off but the fact remains that he blew an opportunity to turn himself into a breakout star a la Obama at the 2004 convention. He’s touted as a sort of boy genius, but a boy genius should have been able to figure out a way not to be actively bad, even if it meant being merely boring. He couldn’t, so his image took a hit. What’s the problem with admitting that? If he was doomed to fail because of the setting — and he surely wasn’t doomed to fail as badly as he did — he should have adapted by changing it and doing the speech in front of a small audience (or a big one). He’s supposed to be the solutions guy, right?
Not a big deal either way, but I’m not sure why it’s heresy to take a dim view of this. Special exit quotation for all the Dittoheads: “People who don’t believe in God believe in Obama. Agnostics, atheists, because believe me, a planeload of atheists on a jet on the way to Hawaii and three of the four engines go out, the atheists start praying to who? God. Not the ocean, to save ‘em. Everybody believes in God at some point, but not until they face their mortality. Everybody does. They have some God. Very few people think they’re it. Obama is one. I think when Obama prays, it’s to himself.”
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next »
That saying is a keeper!
Montana on February 25, 2009 at 7:56 PM
The only thing more depressing than this thread is the thought of Allahpundit snickering to himself about how “easy it always is”.
anniekc on February 25, 2009 at 7:57 PM
And it will also not happen if conservatives start all of their speeches with talking about how great it is that we a black Precedent and how he wants the best for America. That is what many people didn’t like. All of the stylistic stuff was tertiary and relatively inconsequential. It was playing patty-cakes with the devil that was wrong. Rush knows this, himself, which is what was behind his statement that he hopes that all of the Precedent’s socialist policies fail. Well, the idiot messiah just shoved through a trillion dollar steaming pile of socialist, anti-American cr#p (on a lie) and called conservatives names the whole way through. Heck, he threw shots at conservatives in the moronic address last night. Conservatives need to address this directly.
This is not a question of style, but of substance.
progressoverpeace on February 25, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Obviously the “moderate” and “independent” voters are easily won over by ultra liberal platforms (or did they sit out the last election and I missed it?)
neuquenguy on February 25, 2009 at 7:57 PM
AllahPundit,the next commenter who thinks your
a Liberal Hack,or says Rush isn’t a Conservative,
smite them with the ban hammer and banish them,
forever!!!!!!!!!(I’m kidding)haha:)
canopfor on February 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I don’t think criticism is bad for a party, but it is irksome that Republicans seem incapable of mounting cohesive arguments about the opposition, but can whip up a Powerpoint presentation about all the reasons why the guys on their team suck.
To an extent Jindal said all the right things, so isn’t that more important (or shouldn’t it be) than how he said it? Rush’s job is stirring up the masses, so I’m ignoring the extremism in his ultimatum, but I think his core argument is sound.
I’d rather have a sincere albeit less polished public speaker than Obama on the ‘prompter, or Clinton, or most Dems deemed great orators.
haikusrock on February 25, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Denying it won’t make it go away. Besides a good fist fight between brothers is good from time to time.
ClassicCon on February 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM
“Fundie Orthodoxy”
Point out the references to “Fundie Orthodoxy” in Rush’s generic “no atheists in foxholes” statement, or in your response, for that matter.
Tell me how a party that limits its appeal to 78.5% of the population “might as well close up shop.”
What you wrote, and what you were thinking (which is hard to “divine”), were apparently not the same thing. Your statement:
“If the GOP insists on having only Christians as members then it might as well close up shop.”
is, demographically speaking, as I said, silly. Limiting your appeal to almost 80% of the population does not imply that you might as well close up shop.
If I was supposed to understand from your statement, that you were making a comment about disgust with “Fundie Orthodoxy,” well, you need to improve your communication skills. You might begin by actually writing what you’re intending to say.
notropis on February 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM
It was decidedly NOT a campaign issue – but we knew Jindal’s record as our Rep. The people upstate didn’t vote for Jindal the first time because his parents were Indian, but one of the reasons they voted for him the second time – aside from Blanco’s disgraceful performance – was that people generally felt Jindal would make sure we don’t become another Texas or Arizona.
Laura on February 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM
I like Rush, but he’s letting his personal feelings for the guy cloud his judgment. The speech was horrible. He was robotic and spent most of the speech droning on about flooding in New Orleans, as well as dishonestly complimenting The One. You lose big points with me when you’re overly complimentary of the socialist weasel who is actively destroying our country as we speak.
I’m not denying that Jindal is smart and better most of the time… but you can’t pretend he was good last night. Rush talks about how “style” isn’t going to win the country back. Well neither is a dullard that forces you to cringe and then flip the channel.
RightWinged on February 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM
There is so much wrong with this post I don’t even know where to start.
MadisonConservative on February 25, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Probably most are pragmatic and will go where the economy leads them. With what the market did in September all Obama had to do was run the clock out.
dedalus on February 25, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Uhhh, how about 8 years of Dubya.
Regardless of party, he wasn’t exactly our best president.
ckoeber on February 25, 2009 at 8:02 PM
The problem is even if he wasn’t good…you don’t say, lets throw him under the bus. That is stupid. Typical white people.
tomas on February 25, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Rush:
I wouldn’t go that far without further evidence. I have to think that in coming years, there will be developments proving that he was lying through his chin every time he said “I am humbled…”
One thing, however, is dorfamn sure: Nobody who constantly hears comparisons of himself to Jesus Christ on a regular basis and doesn’t protest that they are inappropriate is really a Christian.
L.N. Smithee on February 25, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Giving great speeches doesn’t mean you’re a great leader. Greatest speaker of modern times is generally thought to be Hitler & we know that he was a HORRIBLE leader. His American counterpart Democrat President for Life FDR was also a great speaker & a horrible leader. Of our recent great speakers–JFK, Clinton & Reagan–ONLY Reagan was a Great leader. Lincoln, America’s greatest President, is said to have had a reedy speaking voice but his words as in the Gettysburg Address are among the finest in the english language. Palin & Jindal are proven executives who have accompished more than Obama & communicate well enough.
Max47 on February 25, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Do we REALLY need to go over the faults of Bush vs. his accomplishments?
C’mon…
ckoeber on February 25, 2009 at 8:06 PM
FIFY
mauipundit on February 25, 2009 at 8:06 PM
No. Ideally, the Republican Party will re-root itself in principle. Then once set, people can decide. This is preferable to a party adoption of Hillary Clinton faux-accents or the pandering of crossing-the-aisle-McCain.
I’d rather not have a party run via the Stockholm Syndrome with Liberals as the kidnappers.
In any endeavor, you must define the core–the standard–then and only then can you adapt to the exceptions (aka swing voter).
This past election, McCain focused almost exclusively on the Swing Voter…and thus spent the campaign floundering rootless–his polices lost in the Sargasso Sea.
When Palin was brought aboard–the Core galvanized and his numbers went up. But it wasn’t enough.
Then of course, people who can’t stand the concept of values and “taking a stance” surfaced from their burrows to ridicule her.
It’s the burrow people Rush speaks of…and he speaks of their worthlessness to the Republican Party.
What was it Gen Patton said? Something about preferring a fight with a German Panzer Division in his front than suffering the support of French Division in his rear?
Bridges and roads, airplanes and moon landings, don’t come about because of the constant critic.
Montana on February 25, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Though almost 80% are Christian they evidently don’t have the same political views and probably most keep their religion and politics separated.
dedalus on February 25, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Yeah, I guess if you don’t count fiscal policy, monetary policy, labor policy, judges, security, abortion, gay marriage, governmental subsidies, protectionism, campaign finance, federalism, constitutional adherence, withdrawal from Iraq, education, participation in the UN, who I vote for, farm subsidies, border security, the role of the church in the public sphere, and essentially everything else I’m in pretty deep with the Democratic platform. Hook line and sinker, you got me.
You can keep with the orthodoxy arguments, but these guys are tools and it’s the failure of people like you to recognize this and deal with it that put us where we are, and I guarantee that Nancy Pelosi really appreciates it.
galenrox on February 25, 2009 at 8:09 PM
I don’t think Jindal was “awful” but you can’t shut up an entire segment of the party that doesn’t agree with you. He (and Hannity too) kind of did this to the people that criticized Palin.
Cr4sh Dummy on February 25, 2009 at 8:09 PM
This from the guy who called John McCain “Yosemite Sam” up until election day, and wouldn’t even play sound bites of McCain when he delivered fiscal conservative red meat at his campaign rallies …
Yeah, because Obama’s, you know, just the same and all.
funky chicken on February 25, 2009 at 8:09 PM
So the super enlightened “moderates” and “independents” voted for the ultra-liberal agenda of the democrats because they were mad at Bush? Pretty smart group of people if you ask me.
neuquenguy on February 25, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Which is why we need to see those qualities more in terms of actual policy.
What can set Jindal and Palin apart from the rest of the GOP in terms of seeing them as leaders of the Grand Ole Party is if they give solid ideas.
Simply having a record ISN’T enough. If that was the case McCain would have one.
Where are their original ideas?
ckoeber on February 25, 2009 at 8:09 PM
ckoeber on February 25, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Have you heard him in an interview…well. He isn’t Bush, he is his own man and a could conveyer of message. We saw and interview…a press conference and a last night…2 out of 3 ain’t bad.
Dude, was just tying to be positive. not like Obama and it turned some people off…let him learn not dump him. Seriously.
tomas on February 25, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Why does anybody want to slam one of the best conservatives around.
Doesn’t make any sense to me.
Rush, as usual, is spot on.
For those who take pride in making “constructive” criticism of one of Conservatisms best hopes………enjoy your march to serfdom.
notagool on February 25, 2009 at 8:10 PM
An update:
Depicting Bush as a chimp = Free speech.
Depicting a chimp as a composite of Congress = Advocating assassination of Obama!
L.N. Smithee on February 25, 2009 at 8:11 PM
I’m a Bush type messenger …ha ha
tomas on February 25, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Not necessarily. McCain never set himself apart. Name one big ticket item that McCain really tried to break from Bush?
Tax Cuts? No
Wars? Besides the surge, no.
Energy? No
Economy? Too late in the game to really show he broke from Bush…
At the end of the day McCain could have won IF he showed he was a clean break from Bush without being liberal.
He didn’t and that’s why he lost.
ckoeber on February 25, 2009 at 8:12 PM
yawn…now maybe you can move up to using nerd speak like “epic fail”. Your blind worship of Rush is cute…the puppy love of new listeners…
ClassicCon on February 25, 2009 at 8:12 PM
I have been amazed all day by the number of people critical of Jindal’s delivery and wondering why he wasn’t they same guy that showed up on the morning talk show. These are the same people who mock The One as the TelePrompTer President.
Jindal may suck at reading the TelePrompTer but at least he can speak extemporaneously. That makes him the opposite of The One in every way.
Stephen Macklin on February 25, 2009 at 8:12 PM
.
You seem to assume that because 78% of the US is Christian they all must find the GOP Appealing. Simple math will prove that impossible. Yet that is a telling example of the sense of entitlement the Christian Right has in regards to the GOP. As if they own it and are rightful gatekeepers. Many Christians are far more inclusive in the company they keep yet would still not want to be included in the anti-science movement currently consuming the right.
ronsfi on February 25, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Try again, boys.
You see, this is what happens when you rely on fox news, kooky conservative blogs, and rush limbaugh for your information.
benny shakar on February 25, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Well, obviously they were bad policies, but bad policies != bad leadership, you know? Second, do you have any source for that statement that he is “generally thought to be the greatest speaker of modern times?” I’ve never heard that. It sounds like someone that is generally thought inside your own mind.
Again, not liking his polices != horrible leader.
Actually Lincoln was famous for giving great speeches, and was an extremely charismatic figure. It sounds like you’re just trying to reinvent history for your own argument that Jindal is better than Obama because he’s a terrible public speaker.
What nonsense. Leaders have a responsibility to communicate to the people, and those who do it well have an important leadership skill. The policies might be bad and you may not like them, because being a good public speaker is not a liability.
Proud Rino on February 25, 2009 at 8:13 PM
I was talking about Bush’s failures vs. Bush’s accomplishments.
I was not referencing Jindal…
ckoeber on February 25, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Hahahaha!!….Bromance!
The Ugly American on February 25, 2009 at 8:14 PM
FTFY, just to help highlight Limbaugh’s hypocracy here….
funky chicken on February 25, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Dumb. Moderates already reside in the GOP. Being “independent” at a time when the parties occupy opposite poles is evidence of brain damage.
btw, the two poles are moderate, and radical left. Too many people assume that the “moderate” thing to do is to stand between any two opposing camps. That’s not “moderate,” it’s idiocy.
JiangxiDad on February 25, 2009 at 8:15 PM
You win, what comedy skit did Jon Stewart do about his first name that you are now parroting?
ClassicCon on February 25, 2009 at 8:15 PM
A great leader MEANS the person has good policies.
You can’t seperate the person from the agenda.
ckoeber on February 25, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Rush stood up for Jindal when some other “conservatives” did not.
I thought he was more reasonable.
Randy
williars on February 25, 2009 at 8:17 PM
You obviously don’t listen to Rush because he would consider himself conservative, not republican. Specter, McCain, Snowe, Collins… they’re all republicans, but they’re not conservative. It’s another reason why Anne Coulter pushed for Hillary–because she was more conservative than McCain or LaBamba. Truly, I don’t want to be a Republican if it means getting an R in the White House because I want a Conservative in the White House.
mauipundit on February 25, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Moderates in GOP? LOL
Define moderate first.
ckoeber on February 25, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Piyush is Jindal’s birth name. He adopted the American English name “Bobby” because he was a fan of The Brady Bunch.
The same jackholes who said it was racist and divisive to utter the middle name of The One use “Piyush” constantly. Google it and see how many lefty blogs pop up.
Just another example of “progressive” projection — they who smelt it dealt it.
PHEEEWWWW! Benny, light a match or somethin’, dude!
L.N. Smithee on February 25, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Well, enjoy the silence that comes with being a lonely man.
sethstorm on February 25, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Saying with a straight face that Republicans and Democrats occupy “opposite poles” is evidence of brain damage.
Proud Rino on February 25, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Been listening since 1988. Not new. And yes, I’m a fan. I have been since I started listening. And your poor reasons for not liking Rush are just tired, old, warn out rhetoric. Maybe you need to change your name to ClassicLib.
mauipundit on February 25, 2009 at 8:21 PM
mauipundit, that whole “Hillary is more conservative than McCain” canard that Coulter and Limbaugh fed you is pure, unadulterated BS.
When did McCain ever say he was 100% for socialized medicine? When did McCain every say he was pro-choice? McCain didn’t take any earmarks; Hillary was the earmark queen.
etc, etc, etc
The Coulters and Limbaughs lost this last election for the GOP by supressing turnout for their own side. And now Limbaugh wants to kick anybody to the curb who thought Jindal’s speech was lame?
pathetic
funky chicken on February 25, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Actually, you’re supposed to call Obama “Hussein,” as that is his surname and “Obama” is his patronymic according to Luo tribal naming traditions. The people calling him Hussein are right, and everyone else is wrong.
Proud Rino on February 25, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Lay off the crack pipe, bunny shaker.
HornetSting on February 25, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Keep telling yourself whatever you need to in order to continue your bitching, Funky. He and Anne didn’t lose the election. McCain lost it for himself.
mauipundit on February 25, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Your nick is a turn off as well. What a snot you are. Do you feel better? You should be banned for this remark. Can see you have no respect.
sheebe on February 25, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Eh. Who cares what name they call Jindal? The idea that they think anyone even cares about the name Piyush is pretty funny, by itself.
We know that the left are lying scum. The left know that they are, themselves, lying scum. Everyone knows the left are lying scum. I just don’t want to hear any more conservatives say that the left are decent people. If someone doesn’t want to call the left the lying scum that they are, then he can just not say anything about it, but never, ever, ever try and be nice to the left. All they will do is take the generosity and kindness and use it to kill us and America … because they are lying scum.
progressoverpeace on February 25, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Let me see if I understand it, to attract moderates and independents the Republicans must:
- Oppose Tax Cuts
- Oppose the war in Iraq
- Oppose energy independence
- do something different than bush regarding the economy.
Should I add:
- Adopt a pro-choice platform
Am I getting there?
neuquenguy on February 25, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Huh, considering that Democrats hold wide majorities in both houses and won the White House decisively this past election, it sounds like you don’t think too highly of your fellow Americans in general.
Proud Rino on February 25, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Well, honestly, I do see the holes in my statement. On the other hand, conservatives reside in the Rep. party, and their influence would have been felt in a Rep. administration. We’d have been better off with Bush again than Obama.
Nope. Done explaining. I am a moderate. My opinions and statements are moderate by definition. Whatever is to my left is radical. That means you.
JiangxiDad on February 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Mega Dittos.
Saltysam on February 25, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Should he try to run, ask him the question of H1/L1 abuse – especially how it penalizes citizens in their own land. Don’t assume he’s any particular direction, just ask that question. Then judge based on the direction that question goes.
If talk radio wants to defend a man who defends the abuse (if that is the case) then they’re the ones that are anti-American (and perhaps pro-amnesty). That would have a nasty way of biting back in an undesirable way.
sethstorm on February 25, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Hell no. Dumbasses, most of them.
JiangxiDad on February 25, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Well, sure. Surely you know the terms of the debate, though, otherwise you wouldn’t be complaining about having to share space with those “10 million”.
I notice that those who whine about “too conservative, too narrow” don’t really point out those components of the liberal Democrat agenda that are “right” or will be effective. It’s really just about electoral success. It’s the delusional thought that no one who is anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage has a prayer anymore at winning an election. The Democrats are on a 2-game electoral winning streak; if we ever hope to win another election, we’d better become more like the Democrats. It’s just saying that we have to conform our beliefs and convictions to the Zeitgeist. I’m not buying it.
Tell me something: take Collins, Snowe and Specter. “Moderates”. “Centrists”. Now tell me how exactly it is that they differ from their Democrat colleagues.
ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Saying that American conservatives and American liberals occupy “opposite poles” is also evidence of brain damage.
Proud Rino on February 25, 2009 at 8:30 PM
You, sir, are lying scum. The dems won, in good part, because the neo-Pravda MSM pulled a coup on the country. And, yes, we have a lot of lying scum in this country – and a lot of white guilt that the scum played like a fiddle.
progressoverpeace on February 25, 2009 at 8:30 PM
SouthernDem on February 25, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Thanks I missed it.
Dr Evil on February 25, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Interesting. I guess you don’t like democracy too much.
Proud Rino on February 25, 2009 at 8:31 PM
You’re more diplomatic than I am :)
progressoverpeace on February 25, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Well here we go again. Some one is not perfect in the eyes of the Hot Air staff and we can’t wait to point it out and hammer it. First George Allen, now Bobby Jindal who’s next?
It was not a perfect presentation, but the content was great.
Super Super SIGH
kara26 on February 25, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Here’s a true story about why I personally think the Republican ideal of adherence to “principles” is an issue that should be honestly and respectful discussed:
A few years ago I entered my animated short film into a national contest. The rules stated that other than the running time couldn’t be longer than 4 minutes and no use of the “7 words” in the dialogue, anything goes. The winner was selected by an online popular vote and would receive a new Chrysler sports car (the corporate sponsor, natch) and a trip to Hollywood to meet some high-powered execs.
My cartoon was a screwball comedy homage to the big Universal Studios monster movies of the 1930s (Dracula, Wolfman, Frankenstein, and Frankenstein’s Bride) with all of the dialogue taking place in a Chrysler sedan (product placement, baby!) in just under 3-1/2 minutes. I showed the cartoon to friends I knew from being a guest on their nationally-syndicated radio show and told them it was important to get the vote out for me because I had recently dropped from 1st to 2nd place to another cartoon.
The producer of the radio show asked to see the competition and I showed her. After it was over, she said: “I have to say I don’t like monsters. I actually like that other cartoon better than yours.”
Um… What?
“You know,” she said “I am sure you worked hard on your cartoon but I don’t believe that monsters and violence send any kind of positive message.” She pointed to the screen showing my competition. “I think the private eye cartoon was funny.”
“Wait a minute,” I said. “the private eye cartoon was about a murder. That’s violence. The private eye interviews a Japanese leather fetish queen that turns into an green one-eyed alien that he kills by stabbing in the mouth. That’s a monster and violence! How does my cartoon of Dracula trading snappy one-liners with the Wolfman destroy society but half-naked Asian women as sex objects and monsters that have to be killed with knives somehow fits with your sacred principles?”
With a straight face she replied: “Aliens aren’t the same as monsters.”
“Well,” I said after a couple of seconds of silence. “the bottom line is that every vote counts so I need you guys to get out the vote for me on this contest.”
“But I can’t do that,” the producer said. “It would be going against my principles.”
I then pointed out that my competitor’s cartoon was five seconds over the 4 minute limit (violating the rules of the contest), that his biographical information highlighted his slavish devotion to Dennis Kucinich’s presidential candidacy, and that by not voting for me meant that my generic lefty wack-job artsy competitor would get a new car and Hollywood contacts. “With all that in mind,” I said “how can you not vote for me go to Hollywood and provide some much needed balance in that industry?”
“Because,” she said pointing her right index finger to the sky with a flourish. “I have my principles.”
Of course, that guy’s cartoon won and I got the second place prize (which was a not-for-resale box of animation software–the same software I used to make my cartoon). That radio show bled listeners in all of their major markets and retreated to only a few stations in the Northwest. In 2008 they pushed Huckabee, then Fred!, then lambasted McCain as not being a true conservative until an October surprise of “that John McCain’s actually a pretty darn fine candidate because of that Sarah Palin you betcha” just before it became shockingly obvious that The One was gonna win.
But hey, let’s slavishly all stick to our principles!
ScottMcC on February 25, 2009 at 8:32 PM
Ok. You’re an asshole. And you’re proving my point.
JiangxiDad on February 25, 2009 at 8:32 PM
I don’t doubt that you have left the party out of principle, and I respect that. But I question whether you’re thinking about things through a sufficiently critical lens when you present two people who have built their entire careers around convincing people that they’re more right wing than anyone else and eventually had to pull the “I’m too Republican to be a Republican” card to keep upping the anti.
I don’t doubt that you value these principles, but I don’t think it’s all out of principle, I think it’s self-indulgent. I was in the Libertarian party for years until I realized that decisions are made by those who show up and you don’t accomplish anything by taking your ball and going home.
galenrox on February 25, 2009 at 8:33 PM
I am a Republican – I prefer a Republic to Democracy.
progressoverpeace on February 25, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Not that much as I used to. I like Representation with Taxation, and Representation with Military Service.
JiangxiDad on February 25, 2009 at 8:33 PM
That’s got to be one of the most naive statements I’ve ever heard from Rush.
Today’s Americans have an attention span of 5 seconds and yet he wants them to concentrate on a set of principles over some awkward Ichabod Craneish guy taking about volcanoes and levitating trains.
Dream on.
I like Jindal but his presentation needs some serious work.
The Ugly American on February 25, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Hey, that’s classy. That kind of attitude toward people that disagree with you would fit in great in lots countries in the Middle East.
Right, blame the media. It couldn’t possibly be the message, or the people delivering that message. It has to be someone else’s fault. Always someone else to blame.
Why can’t Republicans ever take responsibility for their actions?
Proud Rino on February 25, 2009 at 8:34 PM
In other words, become good liberal Democrats.
If Republicans are not willing to stand on core principles, the the Republican Party should just save everyone the trouble, disband, and those who wish can join the Democrats in repealing the 22nd Amendment and then passing the 27th Amendment declaring Bambi President for Life and be done with it.
For the two party system to work, you need a second party that stands on its own–with its own principles and beliefs and that party must articulate its views in a clear and understandable manner. Conservatives don’t win by posing as Democrats–when given the choice, most independents so inclined and liberals will vote for the genuine article. Conservatives win when they stand for who and what they are.
As for Jindal’s speech–again, I didn’t hear it due to work, but I read the speech and it came off as very good on paper. We live in a time of short attention spans and instant gratification–for some odd reason, Jindal is expected to hit the ball out of the park on his first go at bat. It’s a long way to 2012–a lot can happen between now and then. He’s got plenty of time to work on his delivery and weak points–as does Palin, Pence, Sanford, and any other possible contenders.
For now, Republicans do best by challenging Bambi and the Democrats on the issues–a novel strategy, I’ll grant you, but one that just might work.
Matt Helm on February 25, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Sorry…got my amendments messed up, the 27th Amendment’s already been passed–the Bambi as President for Life Amendment would be the 28th Amendment.
Matt Helm on February 25, 2009 at 8:36 PM
I recall another young and promising politician doing quite badly in his first national speech. His name was Bill Clinton and it was at the Democratic National Convention. That experience didn’t seem to stop him.
Jindal will be fine. Like Palin, he’s tough, intelligent and resilient.
LenSp1 on February 25, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Do you understand what the phrase, “in good part” means?
never mind answering. You’re just lying scum and not a word out of your mouth (metaphorically) can be trusted – just like the idiot messiah.
progressoverpeace on February 25, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Again, you’re wrong.
JiangxiDad on February 25, 2009 at 8:37 PM
It is so counter productive to either bash or latch on to any one particular candidate when the new administration has one month under it’s belt. The excepted school of thought during the primaries was the we had a deep bench, does anyone feel that way now. Let the cream rise to the top.
I am and have always been very thankful for the opportunity to post here at HotAir in the company of some really extraordinary wits and intellects. It is a privilege I don’t take lightly. I would never dream of insulting my host, who’s job is to encourage lively debates.
Cindy Munford on February 25, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Man, you dudes love to call me names, don’t you? That’s kind of sad.
Anyway, here’s my point: American liberals and conservatives both want capitalism and both want democracy. We all want equal rights for all the races, we all want free trade between the states, we all want to be ruled under the U.S Constitution and we don’t want any major changes in our form of government. No one wants to establish a national religion. No one wants to get rid of the Bill of Rights.
All we disagree about is how to implement all this stuff effectively. Maybe we’re not so close on that, but the goals are the same. We’re not enemies; we just disagree.
Proud Rino on February 25, 2009 at 8:38 PM
It’s both.
roopster217 on February 25, 2009 at 8:39 PM
No, McCain could have touted a truly fiscal conservative platform with real world solutions. Here is my take:
- Instead of just touting tax cuts, give people a plan on what that means. If he came up with a comprehensive plan that provided tax cuts for everyone that would have been a start. On top of that, people should have understood at a basic level how those tax cuts would have affected them. Remember when Obama said everyone making under $250,000 a year will not see their taxes increase? Where was the equivalent from McCain?
- Instead of just going ahead with Iraq, how about telling people what he was going to do? “I support what the Generals are doing on the ground.” Do you realize that the Iraq war is unpopular? How about telling people what they would they could have expected from you in three years with Iraq?
- Instead of just repeating “Drill, baby, drill” show people how we can get off of oil in 10-20 years? The americans are tired of oil.
- How about saying that enough is enough with the bailouts and take a firm stance. Tell people that, yes, banks and companies will fail in the short term so that the market can adjust but in two-three years the economy will bounce back because we let go of the dead weight. Translate that into language people can understand easily.
I think this is a STARK contrast from Bush WHILE keeping with conservative values.
John McCain could have WON with what I typed.
ckoeber on February 25, 2009 at 8:39 PM
What did I lie about, specifically?
Proud Rino on February 25, 2009 at 8:39 PM
All wrong again. Like I said, brain damage.
JiangxiDad on February 25, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Yes, we have a deep bench. And I’m not worried about Jindal, who is a truly intelligent guy, but I want conservatives to be brutally honest and go for the jugular. The times call for brutal honesty and people respect those who truly speak their minds.
progressoverpeace on February 25, 2009 at 8:41 PM
If you compare the platforms of the two major parties, you’ll find they both say all that stuff.
Oh, but I KNOW. The liberals all must be lying when they say it, right?
Proud Rino on February 25, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Er … you call yourself a “Proud Rino”. I mean, you call yourself a “Republican, in name only”. How sad is that?
And that’s aside from the fact that you’re not even close to a RINO, anyway …
progressoverpeace on February 25, 2009 at 8:44 PM
JiangxiDad on February 25, 2009 at 8:44 PM
This whole thread disturbs me for one reason only: The Dems/Libs/Progs/MSM have targeted Rush for destruction, viewing him inaccurately as the current ‘leader’ of the Republican Party, and therefore, anyone Limbaugh supports within the GOP who might just right to be primed for running for the Presidency in 2012 or 2016 must also be targeted for destruction to clear the field for the Dems to hold onto the White House.
While Conservatives are definitely harder on their own than on their opposition, not suffering fools at all especially among their own ‘kind’, it would be, IMHO, a smart thing right now, and for the next couple of years, to let certain individuals find their own footing within the, hopefully, revitalized Conservative Movement.
Bobby Jindal may have seemed wooden last night, and he may need some polishing up around the rough edges, but, also IMHO, he’s got a target on him right now because Limbaugh likes him, if for no other reason. If a poor performance causes the MSM et al to discount him as a lightweight or not possessing the charm and pizzazz to carry off a Presidential run, then I say: YES! YES! Get the target off Jindal’s back.
The Conservatives, of all stripes, by making an issue of his performance, only causes the limelight to remain on him, and consequently the target as well. Bobby needs the time to build his creds and gravitas, and establish his own footing, and decide just how far he wants to go in politics.
He should be allowed to drop out of sight now, and to fly under the radar for awhile. He’s clearly an honorable man who has solid conservative principles. I say we all need to back off, Limbaugh as well, and stop slavishly trying to find that new American GOP Idol who might run a smashing campaign in the next Presidential Election and give the GOP the chance to reclaim the White House, at least.
Obama’s partly at fault for this, as is Hillary. They have made careers out of campaigning, hardly taking time off to do the jobs they were elected to do in the first place because their sites were way off in future election cycles.
Let’s not foster an environment where our best and brightest must become obligatory perpetual campaigners as well out of some misperceived notion that it is their only chance of winning in the long haul. That, plus we’re really desperate right now for true leaders to step forward and take control of the course and direction of the GOP. Let’s not sacrifice potential future leaders for the sake of expediency and out of a sense of urgency.
KendraWilder on February 25, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Wow. Well, now we know why they still make safety scissors.
SnarkVader on February 25, 2009 at 8:46 PM
It is well known that Lincoln’s voice was not well received. Also, the Gettysburg address, as it was delivered, received very little applause and was only recognized for the great speech that it was after it was printed.
You’ve accused someone of rewriting history when, in fact, they’ve simply quoted the history as it has been written.
Saltysam on February 25, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Fah! To all you putting (Putin?) down Jindal.
He is another of the outstanding conservatives in this country.
For alla yu Republicans, p.o., go way, don’t want no mo a your bull. We may have to run as Republicans, but you gotta learn; stupid don’t work with us. Stay quiet and we may allow you to share in the prosperity of the United States of America. The choice is OURS.
BTW there are NO spelling errors in this post. English majors need not apply.
Flying Gadsden
Caststeel on February 25, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Brutal honesty would be great and I see room for improvement in all of our possible candidates. My complaint is that people here take any criticism personally. You would think that someone had licked all the red off their lollipop. I love Rush and I realize what he was saying in context but it was probably better left unsaid. I realize that the people who are willing to throw someone under bus based on one performance are few but they tend to be extremely strident. I know that Allah and Ed are big boys and don’t need me to come to their defense but the rudeness directed at them remind me of the craze people who tend to support Pres. Obama. I want a leader, not an idol and some here have already chosen theirs.
Cindy Munford on February 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM
I also agree. Right now unity is the most important thing. There’s an old saying that people should be remembering. “If you can’t find something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”
Obama is the enemy. Dems are in power because they played up our divisions. So does this blog.
Connie on February 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Trying to speak to the masses of the GOP?
sethstorm on February 25, 2009 at 8:53 PM
If you’re going to give up your principles just in order to win, there’s no point in winning at all. Seems pretty simple to me, and Republicans over the past 15 years have themselves provided plenty of examples.
ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Are the gop scared of big bad rush?
Man up gop and tell rush to GFY.
Geez.
getalife on February 25, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Really, though, what is it that keeps you from being a Democrat? Family tradition? You just like the sound of the word “Republican”? I don’t get it.
ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 8:55 PM
+1
mauipundit on February 25, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next »