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
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 ... 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
Fascists? Let’s see: private ownership and state control. Sounds like your guys to me.
ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Allahpundit I don’t know if you ever played sports or even watch but I guess you have never coached. If you have a good team that is off their game for a day you give them hell to get back on track. If you have a team that is recovering from injuries you don’t go after the team leaders while you are trying to rally and bring confidence back up about stuff like style points.
Too bad your wimpy feelings got hurt when Rush said you and others needed to stop with the negativity for a period. Who will be attracted to a party that isn’t even defending itself? Who is going to rally as we say “Well we f*cked up again?” Rush is trying to put a moratorium on unnecessary criticism for things like style but you being a self-centered a$$ can’t seem to look beyond your reputation of being “accurate” and just cut him some slack like Ed did.
If you aren’t part of the solution you are part of the problem so yeah Rush is right. If you don’t have anything positive to say just STFU! Till we get the momentum back in this party.
Conan on February 25, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Talk radio is full of ads for those behind in their taxes, credit card deadbeats an men who can’t perform. If you are not in the above, why listen?
richard_223 on February 25, 2009 at 10:36 PM
There’s a fool born every day, and in cheese eating welfare land, they multiply like roaches.
I pray you are not right.
HornetSting on February 25, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Put down the glue, the fumes just killed both of your brain cells. BTW, Obamaites are the lemmings and you already live in hell, NYC.
HornetSting on February 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Rush is asking us to be blind to reality and frankly we’re not Obamatrons. We call it like we see it.
technopeasant on February 25, 2009 at 10:38 PM
I think Atlanta Voter has a point. We’re becoming a land of dependents with our hands out to Uncle Santa all the time. It’s the Democrats’ plan. They don’t give a shit about the peasants. They just want control. And there are enough of the mind-numbed NEA factory products out there now to give them all they want, I’m afraid.
ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Personally I thought was more camera and lighting work than setting, the ’setting’ could have worked well if the camera crew had worked it properly.
allrsn on February 25, 2009 at 10:41 PM
I’ve always suspected the audience is overwhelmingly Democrat. That confirms it.
ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 10:41 PM
When you say ‘We’ are becoming a land of dependents, you have a mouse in your pocket. Atlanta Voter has a point, but I hope that Americans that are conservatives don’t fall under the spell of government cheese.
HornetSting on February 25, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Those who doubt that Obama means to sink the free American economy to the bottom and then resurrect it in a bureaucratic and totalitarian configuration where business becomes completely dependent on government largesse are either naive, delusional, or in a drug-induced stupor.
technopeasant on February 25, 2009 at 10:45 PM
All it takes is 51%, maybe not even that.
ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 10:47 PM
And in terms of the electoral vote, NY, MA, PA, CA, MI and IL provides a good reliable base to build on.
ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 10:49 PM
“Sounds like Ace and I are now Republican personas non grata.”
In fairness, AP has always been persona non grata with conservatives. I’m surprised with Ace though. Sure, there were no hobos killed, but is that good enough of a reason to blast my Governor and our future Prez?
Kevin M on February 25, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Actually, it isn’t. A “strategy” is something you MAKE happen; not something you sit around and hope for.
This Socialism disguised as a bailout is equivalent to a Medieval barber attaching leeches to a sick person: If the patient gets sicker, that only “proves” that the fakir didn’t use enough leeches.
If we stand around NOW with the rest of the rubes signing the miracle-worker’s praises, and then start screaming, “I told you so!” only after the inevitable tragedy occurs, the crowd isn’t going to blame Obama for what went wrong; they’re going to blame US for not helping him dig up more leeches.
logis on February 25, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Rush is obviously frustrated with the fact that we too often eat or own for the smallest of defects. He has a point. Jindal generally is an articulate, intelligent and CONSERVATIVE politician. It really does not serve us to trash him because he has one off night. One thing about the libs is when they get behind someone they stick with him, and it is clearly working for them.
We don’t have to be as blind as they are but we don’t need to cede ground to the other side needlessly either. We are not stupid, we know when someone had a bad performance, we don’t need to announce it all over the planet and basically validate the libs. It wasn’t even that terrible actually and Jindal more than made up for it today. At least he is in the arena, fighting on the front lines for our principals in a difficult state. Assholes like AP sit behind their anonymity and their keyboards and take their little potshots. If AP ever had to go before millions of people and speak I am sure he would make a complete ass of himself, like he does here often. Unfortunately people like them will lead us nowhere. I will give Ace a pass because he is usually right 95% of the time.
echosyst on February 25, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Did you even bother listening to that youtube link?
The whole point of that monologue was describing how the democrats were trying to frame Huckabee. He even went out of his way on several occasions to state that was not his opinion. Please, in the future, if you are going to slam someone, at least get you facts straight. I you don’t believe me, Listen again.
GrayDog on February 25, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Fair enough. I hope the American electorate is smarter than that, but after watching this year’s election, I have my doubts.
HornetSting on February 25, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Same applies for Jindal.
sethstorm on February 25, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Well, good for you. Most people would likely claim that they vote for a candidate on substance over style, but when it comes to pulling the lever they vote for the more likeable, charismatic candidate. Go back in time 1000 years and you’d likely find the same thing true.
Do you really think that the balance of conservatives and liberals radically changed when we went from one of the most liberal presidents in modern history (Carter) to one of the most conservative (Reagan)? Or when we went from Clinton to social con Bush to liberal Obama? Candidates win, not ideologies.
Presidential elections don’t hinge on the diffences between the Republican party and the Democratic party. People vote for the man they like best. Enough people agree with who they like instead of like who they agree with. Unfortunately, style trumps substance. We saw it with Reagan Democrats, and again with Republicans for Obama.
The good news is that a conservative candidate can win over moderates and independants so long as he/she is more likeable and charismatic than the Dem opponent. The notion that the party needs to move to the left to win independents is a myth- it just needs more rock stars, instead of professors.
Sorry, Dittoheads, but Rush is wrong here. If Jindal is to be the Next Big Thing, he needs to work on his delivery. A lot. What he says will only make an impact based on how he says it.
Hollowpoint on February 25, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Not the best response, but…
+100
sethstorm on February 25, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Are all communist as tolerant as you?
Johan Klaus on February 25, 2009 at 11:04 PM
I am not suggesting that we go along with the policies and I would like to see Republican plans put out there at length.
Comparison and history would be a wonderful marketing tool. The strategy part is just not to bash the president personally. Did you see how the media called it a war on Pres. Obama because House Republicans didn’t vote for the stimulus? You can’t have that much group think without coordination. It doesn’t do any good for me to whine about the unfairness of the media, it’s time to work around it. I would like to see the RNC doing more, maybe advertising. Maybe the viewing public could be captivated by the common sense answers to the problems before learning it is the Republican answer and discounting it.
Cindy Munford on February 25, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Not really. Jindal at least shows signs of real thought and intelligence, rather than spewing out the same old populist claptrap we’ve had since the Wobblies.
ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Question answered.
Johan Klaus on February 25, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Sorry, Allah, he’s absolutely right.
American Elephant on February 25, 2009 at 11:05 PM
So Rush wants us to shut up and fall in line like we were Obahma worshippers? Sorry Rush, I love ya but your wrong. The fact that we are able to voice our problems with a candidate makes us the complete opposite of the Obahmacrats. Jindal has problems with relating to people. You can plug your ears and ignore it or help him to overcome it early and be ready to kick THE ONE’s socialist ass in 2012. Deal with it.
portlandon on February 25, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Did you believe what Obama said about earmarks?
Johan Klaus on February 25, 2009 at 11:07 PM
I hate to bust your little bubble there, but I’m afraid you’re being a bit of a Pollyanna about this.
Sure, the soft-core liberal moonbats want that sort of thing — people like Hillary and Pelosi.
But Obama’s from a different background. All the Nation of Islam cares about is slashing and burning. They don’t want “economic restructuring”; they want vengeance! When Reverend Wright was screaming “GOD DAMN AMERICA!” he wasn’t just kidding around. Those guys are about as serious as cancer.
To real Muslims (even the Wahabists and al Qaida) attacking America is just a means to an end. With the Nation of Islam, it’s the other way around: the GOAL is to destroy “white man’s America” — all the rest of it is just window dressing.
logis on February 25, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Clever!!! Think that up all by yourself, didjya?
Fed45 on February 25, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Yeah, but I believe Jindal can actually speak WITHOUT a teleprompter. Obama stumbles over his uhs.
HornetSting on February 25, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Sethstorm believes EVERYONE his dear leader says. He needs to get thicker kneepads.
HornetSting on February 25, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Excuse me, everything.
HornetSting on February 25, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Ya gotta point there pilgrim.
Johan Klaus on February 25, 2009 at 11:10 PM
LOL, yeah. There are earmarks in the bill. Obama says there are no earmarks. Sethstorm wants to hear, “there are no earmarks”. Therefore, there are no earmarks.
Thus is the mind of the O-bot.
ddrintn on February 25, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Alas, taken as a whole, we already *are* a land of dependents. The New Fascism was only able to come into existence because a weary, frightened public was tired of trying to make it on their own. Gigantic financial crises they didn’t really understand, media talking heads telling them Armageddon was at hand, but the clean and articulate young candidate from the Democrat party could solve everyone’s problems, a murky foreign scene with wars that seem to flip from victory to unwinnable quagmire every few weeks… coupled with a Republican party that essentially departed the political battlefield two years ago, fading into the shadows in a haze of naughty emails to congressional pages and outbursts of obscure crypto-racist words at political rallies… and a presidential candidate nobody seemed to like, running a hollow, timid campaign whose message seemed to be “vote for me if you really feel you need to vote, but just can’t bring yourself to vote for that other guy.” In an hour of fearful uncertainty, the American people heard insane gibberish from the Democrats, and dead silence from the Republicans. They decided it was better to believe the gibberish, than walk alone into the silence.
Freedom is *hard.* Achievement demands risk – the possibility of success requires the possibility of failure. The average voter – especially the average urban voter – feels surrounded on all sides by shadowy threats: financial meltdowns, terrorism, crime, environmental devastation, health scares that require increasingly expensive treatments. When George Bush vanished into the White House the day after his re-election in 2004, never to be seen again, the Democrats were left to write the political narrative. We’ve all laughed ourselves silly at the clumsy way they went about it – the helpless fumblings of Harry Reid, the obvious stupidity of Nancy Pelosi, and outright saboteurs like Barney Frank – but the Average Joe wasn’t laughing. You will never see Saturday Night Live skits with Barney Frank dressed in a French maid outfit, taking a bath in piles of taxpayer money and laughing as he watches videotapes of himself angrily asserting that Fannie Mae is solid as a rock. You will never see 24/7 wall-to-wall network coverage of Harry Reid’s shady land deals, or Obama’s Chicago sleaze. You will never see 80% of the participants in a weekend round table sitting around and marveling at the pure, concentrated stupidity of Pelosi, or how Joe Biden wasn’t escorted off the national stage after his deranged/senile debate performance. You will never sit down in a movie theater to watch a big-budget blockbuster about a beautiful investigative reporter in danger after uncovering the Cloward-Piven strategy to destroy democracy from within, by deliberately precipitating the Fannie Mae crisis.
Average Joe has been aging in reverse, regressing into infancy like Benjamin Button, pummeled by years of being told what a horrendous mistake he made by not electing Al Gore or John Kerry. Since Bush never stood up to defend himself from calumny, and congressional Republicans mostly earn media attention by announcing how much they revere their esteemed colleagues across the aisle, the criticism sank in. Average Joe has been told all the crises swirling around him are absolutely *impossible* for him to solve – he can never secure his retirement, pay for his health care needs, or heal the environment. And year after year, the soothing calls of Mother Democrat grew louder and louder: “We can take care of everything. You won’t even have to pay a cent. We’ll take it all from the shadowy fat cats that even John McCain agreed were responsible for the financial crisis. We’re the chosen ones, wise and selfless, not employed by any greedy private industry. All we need is for you to mark the right spots on that ballot.”
Average Joe finally listened, and shrank into a helpless baby curled in Barack Obama’s arms. Of *course* the porkulous bill has 60% public support. The public gave up in the Last Election, expressly trading in all skepticism or insistence on liberty and freedom, voting for the man their favorite TV show or newspaper told them to, without asking any inconvenient questions. Cruel Republicans demanded that they stand. Obama required only that they kneel.
Doctor Zero on February 25, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Yes.
Connie on February 25, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Being disappointed with the speech is one thing.
Telling Jindal to just forget about running for anything else ever again on the basis of one misfire is quite another.
Forgive me if I do indeed not want to hear from those who espouse the latter.
Hawkins1701 on February 25, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Beta Males and Fence Sitters.
Sounds like a good party, eh?
Montana on February 25, 2009 at 11:23 PM
I totally agree with Rush about the need for the conservative message to be “inspiring” and “understanding”. I also agree that Jindal is a solid conservative and capable governor.
Unfortunately Bobby Jindal’s speech last night was neither “inspiring” nor “understanding”. It was stupid populist pap. In no way did it advance the conservative cause. Jindal’s speech (and this is so typical of the Republican “message” these days) failed to attack the Democrats on a whole array of issues that they’ve PROVEN to be incompetent on. Yet Jindal chose (or his speechwriter chose) folksyism and that clunker line “We can do anything.”
If the Republicans had visions that Jindal was going to morph into the conservative version of Barack Obama, they’ve been dashed against the rocks.
Mike Honcho on February 25, 2009 at 11:26 PM
I nominate you to give the next Republican rebuttal.
Connie on February 25, 2009 at 11:26 PM
A man who tells the truth or a liar; for who do I vote? Not a hard choice.
Johan Klaus on February 25, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Indeed. But you can teach a person to give better speeches a lot faster than you can teach them policy, facts, etc.
Exhibit A: Team McCain’s failed attempt at a foreign-policy mind-dump on Palin before she sat down for her first interview. Sarah Palin is both intelligent and charismatic, but she had a ton of foreign policy stuff to chew through (and of course the media weren’t going to ask her a thing about anything she might already know, like energy) and the human brain can only assimilate data so fast.
I’m more confident that someone who is a whiz at the policy/facts side of the coin will be able to improve his public speaking skills in short order than I am that a great public speaker will be able to improve his policy chops in the same period of time.
And 2 years is a good, long time for Jindal (if he’s running) to hone his delivery and rhetoric.
Harpazo on February 25, 2009 at 11:31 PM
MALKIN, MALKIN, MALKIN, MALKIN……….
Johan Klaus on February 25, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Who the heck is saying that?
I see this huge backlash. But I never saw any, well… frontlash.
logis on February 25, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Give ‘em Hell, Rush! I’m just relieved he may be falling off the Palin wagon.
thecountofincognito on February 25, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Maybe. But McCain had 9 years to hone his and failed. HWB had 5 and failed. Kerry and Gore spent almost their entire adult lives trying to get it down and failed. Fred Thompson couldn’t do it with decades spent between acting and the Senate. It ain’t as easy as it looks on TV; some people are just born with a BS gene.
Hollowpoint on February 25, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Yeah. That’s cause there’s a REASON they call it “talent.” If somebody’s 37 years old and can’t manage to show any of it in the most carefully prepared speech of his life, dude, flash cards ain’t gonna fix that problem.
logis on February 25, 2009 at 11:51 PM
I’m there.
nukemhill on February 25, 2009 at 11:55 PM
That is what Rush was trying to get across. You are right. I understood what he meant. We don’t need the ones that are hurt over what he said. They cannot grasp what he meant. Therefore, we don’t need those types of minds with us. I like Rush, sure he is a Entertainer but he also knows his stuff about Conservatives. I thought at first Jindel sucked. The first few words. But he didn’t do to bad for being caught off guard. I like Jindal. Not sure if he would make a good POTUS. The Rino’s need to go. They need to be kicked to the curb. That is what is screwing the Republican’s up. But they need to be honest and forget the political correctness, say it as they see it.
sheebe on February 25, 2009 at 11:58 PM
WOW!! Absolutely Brilliantly written!!
sheebe on February 26, 2009 at 12:01 AM
I think the content of Jindal’s speech was adequate. He hit all the major talking points, he’s a solid conservative and obviously a very intelligent guy. But the fact remains it was not inspiring. I didn’t see The One’s speech, so I don’t have his gospel to compare it to, and it still fell flat for me. Seems to me Jindal speaks better off the cuff than reading from a prompter.
Rush is wrong about delivery not being important, or style being given too much weight. Style sells, unfortunately. That’s how we ended up with the buffoon we have now. Reagan was certainly the master of style, but there was also substance in the content of what he said. I don’t think style and substance need to be mutually exclusive.
This is why I think Palin needs to top the ticket in 2012. Whatever else you might be able to say about her, the Cuda can give a speech. She commands crowds. I just imagine people lining up for blocks at a campaign rally to see Jindal or Sanford or one of those guys like they do Palin. And Palin can bone up on things like foreign policy in anticipation of her candidacy, but what she has is not something that can be taught or manufactured. Right or wrong, that’s the reality of it. And I think we need a candidate with her kind of charisma to go up against the Messiah. Jindal would make an excellent VP candidate. He and Palin complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses really well. And given he will only be 49 in 2020, there’s no reason he can’t run at that time, after President Palin has served her two-terms.
Anyway, I love Rush, but his comments don’t really serve the movement. For someone who is always railing against liberals for employing emotion instead of reason, he’s sure acting irrationally. ALL of us need to remember the 11th Commandment — that goes for people bashing Jindal and those bashing his bashers. When we start cannibalizing our own, we lose focus and that’s how we end up with idiots like Obama in office.
NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2009 at 12:03 AM
I thought Jindal redeemed himself today. He just needs to get out there and speak extemporaneously. That seems to be his strength. I would like to see him debate 0-man.
PrincipledPilgrim on February 26, 2009 at 12:07 AM
That’s okay. One of these days Andy Levy and I are going to start a secular, hawkish, (mostly) libertarian third party.
You can”t do it soon enough to suit me if that will stop you from posting on HA.
apoole on February 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM
I second that motion.
Furthermore, if you think that we are in dire need of a third party, read Medved’s latest book (10 Biggest Lies About America), becuase he makes a damn good case for us not needing a third party… and I agree 100% But if it will make you leave, then I am all for it!
SpookyFish76 on February 26, 2009 at 12:08 AM
1) Voting for president is an important decision, and should be given a lot of thought. You should carefully consider whether what a candidate stands for, whether they show evidence of really meaning that, what they propose to do for the country, and how much capability they have demonstrated to accomplish all that. Obama failed on every category
2) People who voted for Obama had no solid, intellectually defensible reasons. Obama as much as admitted that with his whole, “Change you can believe in” slogan. The only thing he promised was change. How foolish do you have to be to accept that as a reason to vote for a man? Obama had no relevant experience, backed away from every pledge he made to win the nomination the moment he had that nomination, showed incredible naivete on foreign policy, and revealed himself for the unprincipled politician that he is.
3) People still voted for him
4) The only reasonable conclusion: voting for Obama was not a rational decision. This doesn’t automatically prove that the people who voted for him were morons, but it’s substantial evidence.
Fortunately, I believe many of those people will eventually see Obama for the corrupt politician he is. Until then, we’re stuck with him.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 26, 2009 at 12:13 AM
That’s the problem. Jindal failed to articulate solid conservative principles. Obama promised tax cuts to 97% of Americans. Coupled with a massive spending program, that means the remaining 3% are about to get soaked. Even McCain, the alleged RINO, had the guts to point out that taxing the rich only encourages outsourcing and wage reduction. Obama asked for his Democratic congress to send him legislation that would effectively nationalize health care. Did Jindal take the opportunity to defend free market solutions to health care costs (McCain did), or to offer an alternative that preserves Americans’ freedom to buy quality health care? When is a Republican going to stand up to Obama’s promise to provide universal health care by forcing everybody to accept a substandard, single-payer system? Jindal and Obama both ignored immigration, which is one of the most important issues for working-class Americans.
Jindal’s speech had some redeeming points. His personal success story is a rebuttal to the identity politics that the Democrats advocate. Race matters in America, but it doesn’t matter as much as determination. But there was nothing in his speech to recommend the free market principles which conservatives are supposed to champion. Jindal was content to point to volcanic monitoring as wasteful spending (which it isn’t); saying nothing substantive about the potential nationalization of our banks.
Like Bush, Jindal conforms so well to the social and anti-science agenda of religious conservatives that nobody really cares that he’s willing to acquiesce to the Democrats’ economic agenda.
RightOFLeft on February 26, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Sorry for the long answer, but here’s part of the transcript from 12/21,07
RUSH: All right, Ed Rollins is on the warpath now for his candidate, Mike Huckabee, and he sat down for an interview with CBS News on their — I guess on their website, and here’s the first question: “Let’s start with the attacks on Governor Huckabee from a lot of Republican establishment figures lately.” Republican establishment figures lately? “Rush Limbaugh has called him ‘the Huckster.’ … Some of these guys have already picked their candidates and I think to a certain extent the alleged wise men have sat around in either their studios or the newsrooms, basically writing magazine articles. They didn’t see it coming, and I think they underestimated him.” Ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Rollins, and for those of you in the Huckabee campaign, I want to turn back the hands of time. We’re going to go back to the archives of this program, specifically November the 8th of this year. This is what I said to my audience on that day.
RUSH ARCHIVE: What if Mike Huckabee wins Iowa? What does that do to Mitt Romney and Thompson in New Hampshire and South Carolina, respectively? … If Hillary continues to stumble, and either Obama or Edwards ends up the nominee, what kind of general election does this lead to? Do you realize the shock? Everybody figures it’s Hillary and Giuliani right now, but what if Huckabee wins Iowa, and what if Hillary loses Iowa?
RUSH: That was November the 8th on this program. Mr. Rollins, who’s now the campaign chieftain for Mike Huckabee, is saying that I am part of the New York or Wall Street-DC axis, the media elite axis, that didn’t see any of this coming. I would maintain, ladies and gentlemen, that if you were listening to this program on November 8th and you heard me say, “What if Mike Huckabee wins Iowa?” you probably thought I was nuts, and you probably thought, “What’s he smoking?” I was the first to bring it to attention. I saw it coming — and I now may be seeing it going, ladies and gentlemen. Now, what I’m reacting to here — and we brought this up yesterday — is there was a post on a blog at the Atlantic magazine’s website. An unidentified Huckabee supporter in Washington said, “‘Honestly…Rush doesn’t think for himself. That’s not necessarily a slap because he’s not paid to be a thinker — he’s an entertainer. I can’t remember the last time that he has veered from the talking points from the DC-Manhattan chattering class.’” And I thought, as I told you yesterday, “What in the world here? Anybody that’s running a Republican candidate or is on the staff of a Republican presidential candidate can’t possibly believe this. Maybe it wasn’t Huckabee or anybody in his staff leaking this. Maybe it was somebody else…After having read Mr. Rollins’ comments, and we’ve got more audiotape of Ed Rollins, but let’s just review, ladies and gentlemen. By the way, like I said at the beginning of the program: I hate that it has come to this, but this little blurb, it’s in the Atlantic, and now, of course, CBS asking Ed Rollins about it and so forth, these people are coming after me personally, which I have not done on Huckabee. They’re coming after me personally like the libs do…. Yeah, I’ve never called Huckabee “a huckster.” I’ve called his fans, his supporters “hucksters.” I’ve not called him a huckster. Of all the people that are out there criticizing Huckabee, it has not been me. I’ve tried to be very judicious throughout this whole Republican primary. The thing is, I saw the Huckabee boom coming before Rollins was even hired to see it coming after the fact. But it doesn’t mean there’s a path that’s cleared to the nomination, either…
So Huckabee goes out and hires the DC-Manhattan axis campaign manager, who then starts ripping people like me for being part of the DC-Manhattan axis! … I think Rollins and his candidate need to stick to the issues. They need to stick to the record. They need to stop with this Clintonesque spinning that they’re doing out there… More I see what Huckster’s — Huckabee’s (laughs) record was in Arkansas, there’s a lot of liberalism in there. There certainly isn’t a lot of Reaganism in there, and I think that the Huckabee campaign is trying to dumb down conservatism to comport with his record, and now they focus on me, challenging me on a personal level here like the libs do. This is my only point, folks. If we can choose a candidate who is pro-life and anti-same-sex marriage and good on national security, illegal immigration, taxes, and spending, why shouldn’t we choose that candidate? Why do we have to choose somebody who’s trying to get a redefinition of conservatism to comport to his views? By the way, this is not just about Huckabee. This has been my lament from the moment this campaign began, if you recall.
Christian Conservative on February 26, 2009 at 12:21 AM
I didn’t mind the content of what I heard Jindal say (at least as much as I could stand to hear before I turned off the TV), but his delivery was downright painful. I felt like I was listening to Mr. Rogers or Sesame Street.
Daggett on February 26, 2009 at 12:33 AM
I have an observation about last night. I heard both speeches. I didn’t see them. My Dad was watching them on TV while I was doing some work in the home office in the next room. What struck me the most was that the sound quality for Jindal’s speech was terrible. I mean really bad.
It may not have been a world beating speech, but the bad technical quality really didn’t help.
trigon on February 26, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Doctor Zero should get his own blog, he’s spot on in a scary way.
Security Mom on February 26, 2009 at 12:44 AM
OK, can the modirator please ban the guy who used the word “Re-pube-lican” I mean, really guys is this 2nd grade? Are we adults here or is this going to become a rant site for teenagers who are spewing the crap their lib parents feed them everyday?
sd78 on February 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM
Gee it makes me wish I’d said more bad things about Jindal. I like it when I disagree with Rush. But truly my expectation were low and I was fed up with Obama’s lies so Jindal was a breath of fresh air. Honest, smart, and conservative. I don’t ask for much. But I won’t be an “Obamaton” for Jindal, Palin, or Romney. Those are the contenders as far as I can see.
Actually, I wonder if Romney’s networth has been hit hard by the markets. And I wonder if he could’ve gotten us out of this mess if he had been more successful. I guess we will never know.
What I do know is that Huckabee and McCain did the country no favors by pushing Romney out. We could really use someone with some business turn-around experience in government right now.
petunia on February 26, 2009 at 12:47 AM
I agree that Rush is pointing to this urge among conservatives to eat their young. People say Jindal gave a bad speech. Obama gives them all the time. He is fallible. What do we always complain about when it happens? The media glosses over or ignores the poor performance. Am I saying we also be blindly ignorant kool-aid drinkers? Of course not, but you don’t have this wave of nitpicking hateful hysteria over a promising young conservative politician. I don’t see any of these snooty talking heads on the right standing up to lead. They’d rather take potshots at those who do. And thats why the right is failing. We’re cannibalizing ourselves over the most inane and stupid things. We lack the cohesion the left does. They are committed to a socialist revolution in the USA. We need to be as equally committed to a liberty revolution. If we aren’t as passionate and willing to take action as they are we will surely fail. They have control of the federal government, large portions of the media and entertainment industries, education system, etc. We don;t even have self-control as a party or people. If you truly want liberty we all have to do more than talk.
chicagojedi on February 26, 2009 at 12:51 AM
I’ll take both doors, thank you.
Jindal needs to go on the attack, and articulate WHY he is turning down so much Stimulus. His opponent in this war is claiming he’s going to stimulate the economy, find everyone a job, balance the budget, halve the deficit, and do all this by taxing the rich only a little. There’s a lot of contradiction in that lump, and Jindal has to exploit it by naming the names and building a map so clearly drawn that even a person who didn’t finish high school can figure it out.
unclesmrgol on February 26, 2009 at 1:00 AM
Doctor Zero on February 25, 2009 at 11:19 PM
DZ, with the highest respect and admiration, this is a wonderful diagnosis. What prescription do you suggest for the patients? Cradling won’t cure little Joe, no matter what sweet things Obama whispers in his ears.
Entelechy on February 26, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Naw… the country chose the out party during an economic down turn. That is what happens historically.
I’m not convinced 50.1% of Americans want Obama’s socialism. He’s just cramming it down our throats so fast most people haven’t caught on to what’s happening.
And they may never catch on. This social engineering will seem like the “new normal” soon enough. It’s sad.
petunia on February 26, 2009 at 1:02 AM
You’ve touched on one of the scariest aspects of Obamanomics. Democrats traditionally assume that taxation has no effect on economic production – in fact, they believe it with such passion they can will themselves to forget things like increased Treasury income after Reagan’s tax cuts, and they are honestly confused when reminded about it. Anyone who has seriously examined the relationship between taxes and economic behavior, on the other hand, is unsurprised by this phenomenon. When you lower taxes, economic activity increases to produce more taxable wealth, and the top earners spend less effort evading the taxes. Spending $10k on accountants to reduce your tax liability is very sensible if it saves you $100k, but pointless if it only saves you $5k.
Of course, the reverse is true: as taxes rise, less money is invested in productive economic pursuits, and more effort is spent to evade taxes. One often overlooked detail is that extremely wealthy people have far *more* options when it comes to reducing their tax liability, including extreme options that become reasonable, and eventually inevitable, as tax rates rise.
Obviously, Obamanomics will require immense tax increases on the highest earners, after reckless deficit spending stops being enough to fund these huge spending programs. Everyone else’s taxes will begin to rise too, but even Obama’s most dedicated worshipers make no secret that they intend to soak the rich – in fact, they look forward to it, and consider it a feature of Obamanomics, not a bug. What does not seem to have occurred to them is that not only will the “filthy rich” take steps to reduce their tax exposure, and generate far less revenue than anticipated… at extreme levels of confiscatory taxation, they will simply leave. I know doctors – local, relatively small specialists who just about qualify for six-figure incomes – who bought overseas property during the Hillarycare scare in the 90s, and retain contingency plans to move there if socialist medicine ever gets implemented. And these fellows have a fraction of the options available to the truly super-rich, who can liquidate their holdings and decamp to overseas tax havens, providing comfortably for their families for generations. Indeed, the Hollywood crowd will be the first ones to move their money and primary residence overseas, to escape their Messiah’s tax collectors. Much of the wealth in America these days is intangible, and intellectual, and therefore very portable. The rail barons of yesteryear, who serve as the template for all non-Hollywood rich people in the imaginations of liberals, could hardly pull up their railroads and hop off to the Bahamas to set up new rail lines and secure their income. Today’s creative, medical, and technological millionaires can do exactly that – and they will, if they don’t find the New Fascism to their liking.
So: what happens when the bond market collapses, the deficits have to be paid, the first big bills for Obamanomics come due… and that “wealthiest three percent of Americans” decides to just take a powder, pulling their corporate wealth and personal incomes out of the economy? Put another way: has there ever been a fascist government whose rise was not accompanied by a mass exodus of the best and brightest?
Doctor Zero on February 26, 2009 at 1:03 AM
The thing is there isn’t really a better place for the top 3% to go. Everyone in the world is singing the same socialist tune.
I mostly agree with you. I can’t believe that Obama has turned out even worse than the worst predictions! This is a sad sad time in American history. And it is galling to know that the people who write the history books will lie about what really happened to America’s freedom.
petunia on February 26, 2009 at 1:10 AM
I’m coining a term here, so feel free to take my comment with the grain of salt it may deserve:
Agree that he’s missing one of the key points here. Rush’s characterization of Jindal’s style problem is a slightly off the mark, even verging into strawman territory IMHO. Jindal’s problem was not a lack of style, but the presence of “anti-style”. His speech was not lacking anything; instead it was augmented with distracting and unnerving transients that interfered with the message and thwarted comprehension (let alone viewer agreement or buy-in).
The way to fix that is by subtracting style patterns, not adding them.
I bring it up because Rush’s position appears (to my feeble mind) to be based on the strawman that we’re all a bunch of sons-of-guns for demanding that Jindal do more, when in reality, we’re all hoping he’ll do less. Less style, not more, would have saved him last night:
“All Bobby Jindal did was tell us what conservatism is…”
No – if that’s all he had done there wouldn’t be a problem today. He did more than just tell us what conservatism is, he added a distracting noise signal to his “tell” that made him hard to understand, let alone agree with.
“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.”
No, but the presence of “anti-style” (at least to this degree) WILL keep you from attaining those goals, Rush.
RD on February 26, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Uh oh… you people are going to have a hissy fit over Gail Collins’ column today!
benny shakar on February 26, 2009 at 1:20 AM
Barring an unexpected event that really changes the game, like another terrorist attack or an Administration-destroying scandal, I suspect things will get worse before they get better. (Can you imagine how the crew in the White House would handle another 9/11-scale terror attack? Don’t try imagining it before bed… you won’t sleep a wink.) Presidential elections are exhausting, and the public does not swiftly come to the conclusion it made a terrible mistake. Those poll numbers that say they want to give Obama a chance are sincere – no one would have much luck convincing a significant fraction of the voters they should rebel against the new administration without giving it a “fair chance” first. That’s one aspect about Jindal’s response I didn’t mind: you pretty much have to say some nice things about the new President at this point, and sound cooperative. You won’t have much luck screaming at the voters to recoil in terror and demand a recall election… not just yet.
The best thing Republicans can do for the American people right now is go loudly on the record as opposing the worst excesses, they way they did with the Porkulous bill. People really *will* remember disciplined, unified, articulate opposition later, especially if Republican candidates in 2010 and 2012 remind them of it. They should also clean their own closets of skeletons and begin hammering the Obama culture of corruption, a theme that really resonates with people, and is bound to get worse – socialist and fascist governments are inherently corrupt. There’s no way a trillion bucks will flow though Barney Frank’s Washington without a *lot* of palms getting greased, and a lot of hands being thrust into the till. Criticizing this will not work if the media can dredge up any significant Republican scandal, and claim that politicians on both sides are dirty scoundrels. A single speck of dirt on the Republican front-runner’s suit will allow the media to forget all about a mud-encrusted Obama Administration. Remember when the Jeremiah Wright story broke big, and the media immediately dredged up some oddball preacher in McCain’s past, and tried to pass it off as the same thing?
When the real economic devastation kicks in, it will be time to present clear, easy to understand free-market solutions, and they must be presented in an emotional way. Like it or not, the swing voters speak mostly in emotional language, and the Democrats are experts at preying on their emotions. Unless Obama is a truly epic disaster and 2012 sees the media already pulling the manhole cover off the Memory Hole, they will make a simple proposition to the voters: failing to re-elect the First Black President is racist, and also it will be scary to remove the man at the helm after he has initiated such bold, sweeping, exciting, heroic government programs. Watch how fast “Hope and Change” becomes “Changing anything right now would be insane!” The *moral* case against fascism must be made: it is wrong to enslave future generations, or our own wealthiest citizens, to ensure our current economic comfort. It won’t be easy, and it won’t be something that can be done in a robotic monotone.
Doctor Zero on February 26, 2009 at 1:22 AM
“you people are going to have a hissy fit”
Not likely. “Hissy fits” are more in your purview.
notropis on February 26, 2009 at 1:29 AM
True enough if you’ve got your heart set on emigrating to France, but there are still plenty of tiny countries that would arrange a superb welcome for a group of millionaires and billionaires, especially if they come as a group. They don’t need a lot of real estate to live handsomely – there aren’t many people in that top 3%, after all, and a lot of them are pals, since they have few peers to befriend. Maybe they could find a nice gulch to build a city in…
Think about how companies get sweet tax deals when they offer to build major projects in a community – my own county was just about willing to offer their first-born children to a baseball team, to get a long-term contract from them. Imagine a group of billionaires approaching, say, Ireland and asking what sort of tax deal they might secure, in exchange for bringing their intellectual talents and vast personal wealth along with them. The super-rich would never bother with such a bold scheme under normal circumstances… but if they think Obama is about to confiscate 90% of their wealth, the island from “Lost” will start looking pretty good.
Doctor Zero on February 26, 2009 at 1:30 AM
:lol Tell it like it is Rush…..
Substance and simplicity is far superior than shallow style.
Jindal was excellent in his speech. And those who know the
truth should deal with it.
dec5 on February 26, 2009 at 1:34 AM
+1k
It’s only the time required to author a blog that could possibly stand in the Doctor’s way! :-)
It would be great to have a HotAir “best comments” link archive (not necessarily at HotAir) so that the we can get back to the really great, great comments.
Nope. (Of course, that history was written before the emergence of the Global Caliphate…)
Which is, I’m convinced, the very reason that our U.N.-happy friends rush to give away our sovereignty in the name of “progress” and replace it with global government: no escape, anywhere, for anyone, ever again, is the goal.
For the only way to make socialism or fascism “work”, is to foreclose all other options, to eliminate all other choices.
RD on February 26, 2009 at 1:35 AM
Looks like a couple of people have been sucked into the very Leftist notion of class warfare–envy of those who have what they don’t have. Christians and Jews have a commandment against this: “Thou shalt not covet.” Yeah, we break that law too, but at least we know that it’s wrong.
baldilocks on February 26, 2009 at 1:54 AM
I really despair for the GOP. McCain spent 8 years sulking over his primary loss in 2000. Built himself a rep with the media; tried to screw the american people with a backdoor amnesty bill, and we nominate the no talent a**clown for the Presidency anyway. He spends 6 months running the worst campaign in the history of the GOP, almost chooses a liberal Democrat as his running mate; all the while, his syncophantic bootlicker supporters are shrieking that he deserves our unconditional support despite him having been one of the most unreliable Republicans for the last decade. He loses, and then allows his staff to trash his running mate. Despite his incompetence, and lack of commitment to his party’s platform, he still enjoys high status in the party.
Bobby Jindal has one off night rebutting Lord Obama Superstar, and we can’t wait to dump him.
Yeah, it’s a big mystery why the rank and file morale is in the toilet. Our young talent, like Palin and Jindal, get gutted, cleaned, and fried every time they take the stage, not only from the left and the media, but from the GOP as well, while useless, media butt kissers like McCain, Specter, and Gramnesty can wander all over the reservation, side with the Democrats on major issues, chide their base as a bunch of bigoted rubes, and they get rewarded for it. If this is how the GOP is going to run, I’m more than happy to watch it slide into irrelevancy and eventually die. We protect the hacks and whip the rising stars. To hell with it.
austinnelly on February 26, 2009 at 1:59 AM
Once again the Left is making up BS about a popular Republican governor’s state. That’s good…shows they’re worried.
Republicans aren’t going to hear political fire and brimstone from any of these guys as Obama is still too popular to attack head on. They should be chipping away at Barney Frank and other Social Democrats for getting us into this mess. The more Barney Frank speaks on national TV, the more I’m sure it helps Republicans.
Dr. ZhivBlago on February 26, 2009 at 1:59 AM
“Thou shalt not covet.”
My Wednesday morning mens’ Bible study was looking for good examples of “covet” as opposed to “admire” or “respect” or “appreciate” or even “aspire” or ‘want.”
Thanks for a perfect example. I’ll bring it up next week.
notropis on February 26, 2009 at 2:00 AM
I am a Reagan head. I cherished the photos of Ron and Nancy sent to me at Christmas and was amazed to be invited to a gathering at the Whitehouse for having donated a few times, the first time #20 and the largest check a paltry $500. A non party member of no repute I was invited by a mailing list computer program to the convention as a guest to meet various party leaders for having loyally donated so little. That snobby Reagan Whitehouse had very open arms. I didn’t go – I was broke and didn’t even have a car much less bus fare to get there.
But I remember how I fell in love with that President. We considered him a mediocre actor. I never heard his early radio addresses, but when he moved into national politics I was mesmerized by his ideas, not by his delivery, which to me was hokey and a bit overdone. When he debated, I cringed a bit, especially at the famous ‘there you go again’ statement. His quip about his age was Jindal category humor but it worked not because of the delivery which has been overblown into legend, but because underneath the joke we knew he refused to back down. Politely, he told the snobs and know it alls that he was not going to go home no matter how much they hooted and heckled. He left the MSM aghast again and again because his words were the words we would have said and his courage exceeded ours. His optimism was gigantic and he has no second thoughts firing the air traffic controllers and no second thoughts to re hire them.
The more they mocked Reagan’s style, the more I felt they were mocking the underlayment of my shared values and I took it personally
Reagan did not have a speech impediment like Jindal but he also had flaws in style that people now want to forget out of respect for the growing legend. This is the first Jindal speech I heard. Personally I liked him a lot more after the speech and he was closer to the Reagan formula than Palin. I also liked Palin more after I heard her.Jindal came across as more complete in his understandings than Palin, but Palin shows she is also fearless and a fast learner.
I am with Rush. The only misses I moticed were a failure to give a better feel for the waste of money in the stimulus and taking credit for a program using tax money to help people buy new homes – which only alienates the larger group of people who are losing homes. Reagan would have better communicated the shamefulness of the pork, and he would not have bragged about a special handout program that happens to carry with it a backlash
I am now going to pay attention to Jindal. He is the closest I have come to someone bragging America up, and living in optimism, not pessimism. He is sincerely and not calculatingly patriotic. He is the anti-Obama. Not slick. Not hating. Not a spender. Not gloomy. Not uncomfortable gushing about his nation.
Then again, I am a Reagan head and enjoy ham served honestly
entagor on February 26, 2009 at 2:08 AM
Sounds to me like you have to make things up about people to compensate for your lack of ability to defend what you believe. You excuse Bush’s spending, assuming that in pointing out the problem with the deficits you’re calling for higher taxes, as if the level of spending is somehow a given. It’s not. During the new deal the federal spending didn’t get higher than 13% of the GDP, under Bush it got up to 21% of the GDP. Cut 8% of the GDP of 12 trillion from the federal spending and all of a sudden we’ve got at least a 400 billion surplus every year, meaning you can cut the top income tax rate another 1 1/2% and still make substantial progress towards paying off the debt. Had the Republicans done that when they controlled government we never would’ve been in this mess, but instead they spent with no regard to good sense and fiscal conservatism, pursuing a Keynesian left wing economic plan to borrow money to finance a tax cut while simultaneously borrowing money to subsidize the production, so they were paying for making the stuff and paying for people buying it.
There’s no excusing that, and it hurts us every time we try. Deficit spending as simply a means to stimulate artificial growth is inexcusable and it’s absolutely not excused by saying we have to spend FAR more than we can afford.
And you presume that I have to support activist judges to support getting rid of sodomy laws. I don’t think they’re unconstitutional, I think they’re absolutely ridiculous. It’s radical left wing governmental intrusion. It’s ridiculous to say that you support economic freedom on the one end and support the government regulating the private sex lives of consenting adults on the other. I have no problem with having a distaste for the behavior, but this is state governments dictating what sex you can and cannot have, the level of intrusion into our lives is massive, and it makes us look preposterous to suggest under any circumstances that we don’t trust government to regulate businesses but we do trust government to regulate our sexual relationships.
From Clarence Thomas’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:
” I write separately to note that the law before the Court today ‘is … uncommonly silly.’…If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.”
Stupid laws are stupid laws, and when you throw your philosophy of government under the bus when you can use government to impose your own will on others you wind up supporting stupid laws.
And what I said was it’s dumb to oppose stem cell research if you don’t support making in vitro fertilization illegal. If you’re fine with making thousands of children to throw out and die you might as well make some use of them, but I don’t think you should be making them. Instead of saying I’m for baby part research you should ask yourself why the politicians in Washington that you support are for filling dumpsters with babies.
And of course you didn’t respond to everything else that consists a political philosophy, because there isn’t a damn soul that could actually put my conservative credentials up to question and certainly not you. I could give a damn about your concepts of conservative orthodoxy because it’s pure crap.
You put Obama in charge, and if that’s somehow conservative in your world view then that would explain why you’re so damn sensitive about it.
galenrox on February 26, 2009 at 2:09 AM
You’re actually taking the side of the ridiculously dense hypocrite who believed her so-called conservative Republican principles justified voting for the lefty wacko because “aliens aren’t the same as monsters” in my story?
Dude.
ScottMcC on February 26, 2009 at 2:16 AM
Actually, it is the young who are eating conservatives. Which should tell us what the problem is. The young have gone through the indoctrination process and have not emerged unscathed. They actually buy into some of the garbage.
Connie on February 26, 2009 at 2:28 AM
I love Rush. I like Jindal.
Jindal is better than his response to the fake SOTU.
VolMagic on February 26, 2009 at 2:58 AM
Duh. What do you think.
Wrong. It was a partisan hit-job and if you can’t tell that GrayDog you’re either naive, blind, stupid, or a liar. And really, I can’t believe your that stupid, you HAVE to know what Limbo was spewing was unadulterated lies. He was trying to influence Republicans to believe that the mainstream media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the whole alphabet soup of bolshevik media wanted Governor Huckabee to win the Republican nomination, and that they were trying their best to help Huckabee by influencing a high vote for him in the Republican primaries because what they really didn’t want was Romney, or Rudy, or Thompson, to win. This was a con-job by Rush, that the liberal media wanted to portray Huckabee as another Bush and line him up against Hillary or whoever the Dems representative was …seriously, if you can’t see through Rush’s transparent and ridiculous arguments against Governor Huckabee something is wrong with you. You have a perception problem or you are a liar.
Hiding behind “IMO” doesn’t change a thing! Rush said he wouldn’t support a candidate in the primaries although that didn’t stop him putting out a hit-piece against one of them! He was trying to yank the rug out from underneath Huckabee just as he was gaining steam and a following.
I’ve listened to that audio at least 10 times. I know exactly what it says. It was morally reprehensible because Rush was lying and he knew he was lying to his “loyal paying listeners,” yet he still did it.
apacalyps on February 26, 2009 at 3:06 AM
This can’t be your evidence that Mike Huckabee went after Rush first. Don’t you notice something? It’s right there. Staring you in the face. It’s the elephant in the room. Re-read it. Rush quotes an anonymous (not verified) “source” from the Huckabee campaign who …, well, that Rush said criticized him. Of course, Limbo refused to name the culprit and blamed it on Mike instead, which was cruel and unfair. Anybody can make up stories with “anonymous” sources, and it wasn’t even Huckabee who SAID IT! The fact is, this was another smear by Rush in addition to the one he already put out on Huckabee, and once again, this was done to hurt Mike’s run for the Presidency.
No scruples. What a snake.
Here’s another smear by Rush. Calling Huck a liberal. Before he was saying the liberal media wanted to portray Huckabee as another Bush and line him up against Hillary. Now he’s saying the opposite and that Huck’s a liberal. This propaganda warfare used against a fellow conservative who could very well be more of a conservative than he is provides a good look at his true colors. What a sad man.
apacalyps on February 26, 2009 at 3:45 AM
Huckabee would have been a disaster. His entire term would have been pretty much what AP provides – religion-baiting. AP isn’t right, but that’s how it would have played out.
Connie on February 26, 2009 at 3:49 AM
Sorry. If you fear putting a true Bible-believing Christian (who is not perfect, Mike is not perfect, but sincere and well-meaning) in the White House because you think people will be debating the subject of religion, well, that is being a coward. No offense, it just is. What a silly reason for not electing somebody. Answer me this. Do you believe in God?
apacalyps on February 26, 2009 at 3:55 AM
“Answer me this. Do you believe in God?”
I’ll jump in on this one. Yes, I do.
But then, Huckabee is, by his own admission, a populist, and not a conservative by anyone’s definition but his own. If you can get your guy to support free trade, free speech, lower taxes and less government spending, then maybe he’ll deserve a new look.
But that wasn’t his 2008 platform. So, regardless of his religious leanings, he was no conservative.
notropis on February 26, 2009 at 4:11 AM
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.
No thanks. I’m sure you can find one more for your circle…er, formation. Maybe Olbermann will be ready to join you.
SKYFOX on February 26, 2009 at 5:37 AM
Some people recognize that The Almighty is not a businessman.
sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 5:59 AM
Just wondering why we need to read Allahpundit when we have Kathleen Parker. Substance is about the same.
mark-o on February 26, 2009 at 6:02 AM
Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.
Businesses don’t understand that yet.
sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 6:04 AM
the idea is to take an intellectual reformer who has helped people and make him a laughing stock. Of course many on the right were to busy attacking Jindal to understand that a good man was in the process of being politically destroyed. Will any of you in the towering heights of the right ever get it through your heads that we are facing the most relentless economic-political-and social machine in history. Why the hell do the lefts job for them?
rob verdi on February 26, 2009 at 6:05 AM
Rush was commenting on the tendency of Conservatives to throw people overboard for one misstep. I personally didn’t think Jindal’s speech was awful, but it definitely wasn’t great. Some, like Laurah Ingraham are ready to throw Jindal overboard and be done with him. I think we all in the Conservative movement need to take a step back and realize that Jindal is an effective and principled Governor, and an important part of the future of the Republican party, no matter what happened last night. Once speech does not make a political career. The end of Jindal’s speech was much better than the beginning, and what he said was important. Besides the mediocre delivery, none of these responses ever do particularly well, no matter who it is, just because of the contrast to the Joint session.
SalAOR on February 26, 2009 at 6:16 AM
No, but it’s a lot more likely to see his replacement not want to go against its constiutents a la Jindal.
sethstorm on February 26, 2009 at 6:25 AM
This is my main problem with the conservative circular firing squad I’ve been seeing recently. The left doesn’t have to do anything–we’re doing a good enough job knocking ourselves out for them. I think Rush’s comments yesterday were borne mostly of frustration with this tendency conservatism has been showing–really since before the election.
Now, this doesn’t mean we have to march in lockstep like the libbies or that there is never room for criticism–there is most definitely a place for constructive critiquing and criticism, and our leaders should know that we are constantly watching and evaluating them. But they should also know that the reason we are watching and evaluating them is so that they will want to improve and be more effective.
Let’s put an end to this circular firing squad and turn our attention to where it needs to be turned–Bambi’s failed policies.
Matt Helm on February 26, 2009 at 6:33 AM
Let’s see: Bill Clinton gave a totally worthless, boring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1988, went on the Tonight Show to joke about it, was hailed as the future of the Democrat Party, and became the next President.
Do you guys know anything about party loyalty and marketing?
Stepan on February 26, 2009 at 6:34 AM
And you’re playing into the left’s hands.
Take a look at what you’re doing, Allah: because the left has created a Slander Machine that will instantly hurl a million metric tons of filth at any conservative who appears in any way less than perfect, conservatives now habitually criticize any imperfection that appears in a Republican candidate, anticipating what they left is going to say.
They’ve trained you. Now you imitate them.
I understand why you do it, but it’s time to knock it off. We cannot eat our own. They left will do that for us. We need to anticipate what they’re going to do, but not capitulate to it.
Jindal is the genuine article of which Obama is the knock-off, a real intellect with the ability to change things.
philwynk on February 26, 2009 at 6:45 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 Next »