Video: Steele, Cantor dismiss Limbaugh’s “I want him to fail” rhetoric
posted at 3:46 pm on March 1, 2009 by Allahpundit
The first clip comes from last night’s chat with D.L. Hughley, the second from this morning’s “This Week.” Skip ahead to the last minute of the latter after clicking the image for the bit on Rush. The media enjoys pressing Republicans about this for the same reason wiseass atheists like to ask believers if God can make a rock he can’t lift: No matter how you answer, you’re in trouble. Steele and Cantor are pols and are worried about expanding the tent, so like Mark Sanford, it’s a fait accompli that they’ll side with the president who’s popular with most of the country over the talk-show host who’s popular with their base. Steele, at least, gets off a good tu quoque in Limbaugh’s defense. Cantor just ducks and covers.
I like his comeback about who the real leader of the party is, too. Exit question: Every conservative scheduled to appear on cable news this week should probably have an answer to this question ready, no?
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
(peacenprosperity) There is alot of what you said that i agree with.I also think that the time for a new consev.party draws near.I think Rush deep down inside think so also.
thmcbb on March 1, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Steele, butch up, dude. HEAR THIS: the blacks will NEVER VOTE AGAINST OBAMA, NOR DEMOCRATS, OK? So, stop pandering. Pandering to the race pimps makes people sick. You can’t out-pander the victim panderers. Write them off and DO YOUR JOB.
marklmail on March 1, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Me personally, I hate O’Reiley because its obvious he’s just a mindless populist.
As for Hannity, his heart is in the right place but a lot of times he’s just using talking points especially on TV. He’s not nearly good enough at thinking on his feet. But again, I think on policy and principles he by and large right.
Kronos on March 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM
How can you say that? Attacking Rush and Ann is ‘meaning well’? Criticism without merit, based on feelings is ‘meaning well’?
Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Trying to equate the two based on the fact that they’re in the same line of work makes about as much sense as comparing Obama to Lincoln or Hitler to Churchill or Dan Rather to Brit Hume or Bill O’Reilly to Cindy Lauper.
FloatingRock on March 1, 2009 at 7:20 PM
yeah they’re fine, I don’t agree with o’reilly much of the time…so?
right4life on March 1, 2009 at 7:21 PM
There you go. O’Reilly is a big social con but it doesn’t mean that Kronos is any less of a social conservative (although you might not be a social con) because he doesn’t like O’Reilly.
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 7:21 PM
very true…and I really wonder about the black ‘christians’ of whom I know a few, that would vote for a pro-abortion candidate, then give me some BS story about how its more important to ‘care’ for people..blahblahblah…
I had to tell someone I really liked goodby….I saw something very ugly in them about their callousness over killing unborn babies…and this is a professed christian…scary stuff…
right4life on March 1, 2009 at 7:23 PM
uh no, it goes a bit beyond this, you’re willing to throw rush and ann under the bus cause you don’t like the way they say things…you wish they would not speak the truth, because you consider it offensive…and you’re afraid of what the liberals will think of us!!!
amazing.
right4life on March 1, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Especially if it’s a concerted effort with Rush and other popular conservatives.
If the Republican Party keeps on the way it’s going, let’s hope that at some point he’ll realize that our founding principles are more important that any one party.
FloatingRock on March 1, 2009 at 7:28 PM
I think that is why he doesn’t seem to even want to talk about the pros or cons of it. I think he really believes that it might be too dangerous a time to try it. I would probably partially agree, the fascists will do anything to permanently get control. I just think they are doing it anyway and if we wait too long opposition parties not sanctioned will be illegal.
peacenprosperity on March 1, 2009 at 7:32 PM
The more I hear Steele the less I like him..
Can he get a backbone ???
dugbru on March 1, 2009 at 7:37 PM
I agree her argument is complete BS but she’s not a troll in the true sense of the word, and regardless, there’s no point in getting personal when she hasn’t done the same. People can do what they want but I think it’s unnecessary. I don’t agree with her on much, but I still like her spirit.
FloatingRock on March 1, 2009 at 7:45 PM
She gets personal with Rush and Ann, not you or I. Rush doesn’t need me to get his back, neither does Ann, but personal digs are not “well meaning”.
Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM
That is true as long as we try to pander to them. When the conservatives have a good track record of running on a consistent conservative platform, thing will change for the better.
darktood on March 1, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Things will change for the better when our elected representatives do what is right for our country rather than what will get them elected!
TERM LIMITS after a big old fashioned tea party!
dhunter on March 1, 2009 at 8:12 PM
How many of those polled have actually listened to his show for a decent length of time?
aikidoka on March 1, 2009 at 8:17 PM
So what if Rush said he wants Obama to fail? I want Obama to fail! Liberals not only wished that George Bush would fail; they wished, hoped and prayed that the military would also fail, and they went about doing everything in their power to try and bring about those failures! They even made a movie fantasizing about assassinating George Bush. They are still pushing to have Bush and Cheney arrested and frog marched to The Hague! Now they are all foaming at the mouth because Rush said he wished Obama would fail? To hell with them! And to hell with all you weak-kneed gutless “conservatives” who are to damn scared to defend Rush. No wonder the libs choose to focus their attack on Rush. They know that they have effectively neutered all Republicans in Washington DC.
And by the way, who the hell cares what a fourth rate comic like D.L. Hughley and all his jackass liberal friends have to say? They are not qualified to shine Rush shoes!
RMR on March 1, 2009 at 8:27 PM
You’re right that “well meaning” may have been inappropriate regarding this discussion, but I sort of meant it to apply overall to her. I just think that it’s fruitless getting personal with a regular commenter who generally means well even if they’re wrong on this topic, (and a lot of others, IMO). :)
I don’t often agree with her but I respect the fact that she’s here, usually in the minority, and fights on regardless.
Besides, regarding Ann some authentic conservatives are turned off by her caustic manner, regardless of whether or not she’s right, and while I don’t personally consider TerryAnnOnline to be “conservative”, I think it’s plausible that some conservatives who’ve listened to Rush might be turned off by him as well.
At any rate, people didn’t get that personal so, this being like my third post on the topic I think it’s way overblown at this point. Let’s let it drop. Having to belabor the point is making me feel like a nanny. :(
FloatingRock on March 1, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Well all these people like Ann and Rush and Hannity make a living getting attention. That does not mean they are not right a lot of the time, but sometimes they go off the deep end. It goes with the territory. They are not politicians, they are not bound to represent anyone’s views but their own.
And even though I do not always agree with Rush or Ann or Hannity or even Michelle..they could never offend me the way someone like Reverend Wright does. And somehow the fact that Wright says all these outrageous things and has said them for years did not seem to hurt Obama. I just do not get that. If Independents are put off by Rush..how can they tolerate Wright?
Terrye on March 1, 2009 at 8:31 PM
As far as wanting Obama fail..well at least Rush did not want the country to fail. And sometimes I feel that is exactly what some people on the left have been hoping for.
Terrye on March 1, 2009 at 8:33 PM
You got it. I don’t want to argue with you anyway.
Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2009 at 8:36 PM
PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS THAT BARACK OBAMA REFUSES TO RELEASE -. OBAMA’S SECRECY AND “CLOSED RECORDS” POLICY
Indonesian Passport – Not released
Application for U.S. Citizenship (as former citizen of Indonesia) – Not released
Immigration Records – Not released
Original Vault Copy Birth Certificate – Not released
Certificate of Live Birth – Counterfeit Version on Obama Web Site
Obama / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro / Dunham Marriage License – Not released
Soetoro Adoption Records – Not Released
Fransiskus Assisi School Application – Not released
Punahou School Records – Not released
Selective Service Registration – Counterfeit version generated
Occidental College records – Not released
Columbia College Records – Not released
Columbia Thesis – Not released
Harvard College Records – Not released
Baptism Certificate – None
Medical Records – Not released
Illinois State Senate Records – Not released
Law Practice Client List – Not released
University of Chicago Scholarly Articles – None
searcher484 on March 1, 2009 at 8:38 PM
George stuffie. . . Where -O-where did you get that 60+ %
number the people trust Omama with the economy . The
welfare office ?
Texyank on March 1, 2009 at 8:51 PM
I guess if the gop ever win again, the left will say they want him to fail on day one too.
Sigh.
getalife on March 1, 2009 at 8:53 PM
I’ve been out and am late catching up with this discussion.
I’d like to know if you have either read the transcript of Rush’s speech or watched the speech?
You never answered the question about policy differences, you only deflected it by saying, What does it matter about our policy differences when I think he’s a flamethrower and obnoxious?
How much time in the past have you actually spent listening to Rush? Not just once or twice, but enough to get a feel for who he is and what he says?
He does solid deliberation and explanation of conservative ideas. Rush has a strong sense of humor and uses mockery as a tool of debate. He takes the pretentious hypocrisy of liberals and turns the tables on them. I don’t always agree with him or with his manner of expression, but to say he’s a flamethrower is really an exaggeration.
The other day you stated you were in agreement with social, fiscal and defense conservatism, all three. Is this correct?
I’m also trying to find where in the transcript of his speech that Rush states liberals are deranged (as the twitter link you gave mentioned). I’m trying to find the context. Have you read it?
INC on March 1, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Yeah, only those who have never given him a listen, you pathetic blathering dolt.
OmahaConservative on March 1, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Let me clarify my comment–to imply, as your comment seemed to do, that Rush’s mindset is that of a flamethrower is really an exaggeration. Yes, he does throw flames, but sometimes they’re well-deserved. Sometimes they’re part of his shtick, but that’s not all he does by a long shot, and IMO, it doesn’t define him.
INC on March 1, 2009 at 9:00 PM
When, not if. And of course they will, just as they did in January, 2001. And January, 2004. Not to mention January, 1989. And 1985. And 1981. And 1973. And 1969.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 9:06 PM
*January, 2005 rather.
ddrintn on March 1, 2009 at 9:06 PM
The reason I wondered if you’d even read the speech Terryann, is because you didn’t quote the speech, you quoted someone’s twitter.
I found the context:
INC on March 1, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Where were you for the last 8 years? In a cave? Cut of from the rest of the world?
Bush-Hitler! Chimpy Bush! Bush the Nazi! Bush and Cheney have blood on their hands! Bush the murderer! A parade of Hollywood “stars” travelling the world viciously attacking America and George Bush. Jimmy Carter and Al Gore on a world tour attacking George Bush as the worst American president evah! I could go on and on, but by now you should get the picture. So I ask you again, getalife, where were you the last 8 years? Huh?
RMR on March 1, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Actually I got to see most of his speech to CPAC on Fox News. I’ll admit, no, I’m not a Rush listener. And I’ll just put it plain and simple: I don’t think saying “I want President Obama to fail” or calling liberals “deranged” is the way to go. I don’t think the millions of people who are liberal or vote Democrat are “deranged.” You see that’s what I don’t like about Rush and Ann, the name calling.
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Since they vote for the likes of Pelosi, I think deranged is putting it mildly
husker3000 on March 1, 2009 at 9:17 PM
You need to listen or at least read some of Rush’s site at the end of the day before you start blasting him.
In the link above, I remember that first paragraph when I read the speech yesterday. I also remember as I read it agreeing with Rush about liberalism being a psychosis or a psychology, not an ideology. That’s because I’ve known a lot of libs. They’re not about logic or history. They don’t even stop and evaluate their ideas to see if they really match reality of who people are or if their ideas have been shown to work in the past. If they did, they would abandon them. (I’m not even talking about the Leftist libs who are all about power and who merely push liberal ideas as a means to that end).
The things liberals believe in are cruel, because they will never actually accomplish what liberals profess to want–a better life for others. Their policies hold out a dream that will never materialize and to do that is deceptive and it is cruel.
Deranged is a strong word, but the libs are out of touch with reality.
INC on March 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Derange 1. To disturb the order of. 2. To disturb the normal functioning or condition of. 3. To make insane.
1. and 2. both sound applicable to me.
FloatingRock on March 1, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Proving that your thought processes are limited and dysfunctional. Also indicating that you likely get your news from katie, brian and npr. A true conservative makes sure they know the facts before making a judgement. You just spouted propaganda and your support for it. Get some courage and come out of the closet, arianna.
peacenprosperity on March 1, 2009 at 9:24 PM
You are listening out of context. You need to hear the entire segment, if not show.
I want to apologize for my knee-jerk remarks that were a personal attack upstream.
OmahaConservative on March 1, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Anyone who can listen to pelosi, reid, schumer, kennedy, et al and say,”Those are my leaders.” is not only deranged but probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
peacenprosperity on March 1, 2009 at 9:26 PM
It took me a little time to put this comment together, so I’m a little late getting back into the flow of comments.
Here’s an interview with Thomas Sowell. I’m quoting this because he’s discussing different views of reality and which view actually matches reality (that is if you really do want your ideas and policies to result in a good outcome for people).
Now, Sowell doesn’t say the Left is deranged, but he does say this in that article about the likely outcome of Obama’s policies:
On judges:
On the war on terror:
On the economy:
His conclusion:
INC on March 1, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Sowell has a different style than Rush. That’s obvious. But IMO he’s saying the same thing.
Liberal ideas result in disaster. To propagate them indicates you either don’t understand history or reality or else you don’t care and are merely using them for your own means, i.e., power.
Now Sowell is going to say libs have a vision that is elitist, but notice he is pointing out that there ideas result if disaster and failure.
Rush is going to say they’re deranged. That’s his shorthand for the same conclusion.
INC on March 1, 2009 at 9:36 PM
there ideas s/b their ideas
INC on March 1, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Terryann, as a point that has been belabored here about the canard Rush wants Obama to fail, if you’d gone back and looked at what Rush said weeks ago and in the speech you’d realize that what he was saying. You’ve bought into liberal spin on Rush.
INC on March 1, 2009 at 9:42 PM
And how could we forget that for the last 8 years the liberal mantra was “dissent is the truest form of patriotism.”
So I guess Rush’s comment proves how truly patriotic he really is. Doesn’t it?
RMR on March 1, 2009 at 9:42 PM
And is very disheartened by the way liberals treated President Bush. So we should turn around and do the exact same?
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 9:46 PM
What do you think of Sowell and the comments I made?
INC on March 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Huh? When did Rush say he wanted Obama to fail? Rush said he wants Obama’s policies to fail.
I want Obama’s policies to fail, too. Else my small business will never return to profitability without morphing into some government suckling.
desertdweller on March 1, 2009 at 9:51 PM
I’ll be honest I’m not too familiar with Sowell’s work. But imagine that he probably has more class and tact when making arguments than Rush. Like I’ve said before it’s about tone. I can tell you the exact same thing twice but it can be taken totally differently if I raise my voice or lower my voice.
terryannonline on March 1, 2009 at 10:00 PM
The video was not invalidate Rush, Steele is correct to take the wheel on leadership items.
We all know Rush is the new symbol of conservatism, the public voice and inspiration but steele is right, Rush is first and foremost an entertainer.
FireBlogger on March 1, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Just read the article and see what Sowell said there. What do you think of it?
Do you see that Sowell is saying the liberals are out of touch with reality and their policies result in disaster?
If you’re not familiar with Sowell, then you really should see what he has to say.
If you’re not familiar with Rush, then you really need to be if you’re going to criticize him.
INC on March 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM
not too familiar with Sowell’s work, doesn’t listen to Rush.
Go listen.
Come back with critical observations.
Thank you.
OmahaConservative on March 1, 2009 at 10:07 PM
I’ve been saying this for the past 15 to 20 years! Conservatives, except for the likes of guys like Mark Steyn and the late Bill Buckley (and probably a few others that I fail to recall at this time), are like the proverbial deer in the headlight when they go on these shows. Again, see Rush vs. Letterman, and Coulter vs. Walters, neither one was ready.
You have to come in prepared, and they don’t!! I don’t know what it is, maybe they actually think the liberal will treat them fairly and with respect. You can’t do it folks! You better be ready for “questions” like, “do you think it good policy to cut off funds for children’s lunches?” or “how do you feel about slaughtering one million innocent Iraquis?”
The new liberal “gotcha” question is, “How do you feel about Rush Limbaugh being the new head of the Republican Party?”
You know what my answer would be?
Where did you get that information? From what source? Name one member of the Republican Party that claims that. Or, maybe this –
How do you feel about Howard Dean being the leader of the Democratic Party? Oops, he already is!
Rush is Rush. He is no more the leader of the Republican Party, or the Conservative Movement, than is Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly. He is one of our famous spokesmen who says a lot of things we believe in, and some we don’t, period! We decide who our leaders are, not the left-wing media. So, stop giving them the power to shape the agenda Mr. Steele!!!!!!!
I agree with another poster here, the RP gets no support from me until he gets some guts.
As far as Cantor is concerned, eh. He is just another version of the typical Republican Pol; “Well, Katie, that’s a very good question, and I certainly agree that there is too much inflammatory rhetoric on both sides. We in the Republican Party wish President Obama the greatest success, and will work with him in a bipartisan fashion.”
Why do they do this? “Because, we certainly do not want to have you members of the left-wing media establishment mad at us. We know our constituents can’t do anything about it, but we know you can.” That’s why!
Joe Pyne on March 1, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Terryann,
I agree with OmahaConservative.
I’d guess that almost every library in the country would have some Thomas Sowell on the shelf. He’s written lots of books and he also does a column you can find on the web.
Radio and the web carry Rush.
INC on March 1, 2009 at 10:20 PM
I believe the answer is yes, he gave man free will and man can lift that rock with Gods help. But that choice was left up to us. Not so hard now was that AP.
jims on March 1, 2009 at 10:31 PM
video removed….
CBarker on March 1, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Sheesh, what was “ugly” about Rush’s speech? Honestly, what?
-Aslan’s Girl who has watched Rush’s speech twice already…
Aslans Girl on March 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM
I don’t read about politics as much as some here but when I’m in the mood, I go to Sowell first. Check him out, TerryAnn.
FloatingRock on March 1, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Terryann, if you don’t listen to Rush, then you have no basis of reference from which to use the word ‘flamethrower.’ The only way you’d use that word is if you heard it somewhere.
If you listened to Rush every day for 6 weeks, then you’d know that you were completely off base.
And frankly, the way Rush has been treated by the left, the media, the police, and even many of his fellow Republicans more than justifies him being as caustic as he wants to be.
fossten on March 1, 2009 at 11:14 PM
With all due respect. Liberals couldn’t care less if you are disheartened or not. As a matter of fact; many liberals hope that their utterance will not only dishearten conservative but belittle and degrade them in the eyes of the general public.
No, we shouldn’t “do the same”. But at the “same” time, we shouldn’t be so quick to throw conservative stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh under the bus because liberals get their panties in a knot over some miniscule criticism of their lord Obama. Rush says I hope Obama fails. Liberals start crying like babies and demand that conservatives cradle them in their arms; rub their backs and rock them to sleep. There, there wittle wiberal. Mean Wush Wimbaugh made boo-boo cry? Bad Wush.
Please! Tell these darn liberals to grow a pair.
RMR on March 1, 2009 at 11:20 PM
On the Cantor video, much ado about nothing. First of all, Stephanopolous is a terrible interviewer; he’s clearly going through a punch list of questions and not adapting to what is said during the interview. Anyone who could sit through this interview must be a CSPAN-oholic. (Example: We’re in the midst of a recession, but Stephanopoulos can’t resist asking about gay rights and the environment and how these issues can make or break the Republican party! Yawn.)
As for what Cantor actually said, it’s an overstatement to say he repudiates Limbaugh. The Dems are trying to stir up controversy, but like most things they handle, they screw it up.
And did everyone else notice Stephanopoulos’ complete apathy about Cantor’s main point, that this Congress and White House are spending us into oblivion? The Dems are really clueless about the economy. Their incompetence about military matters used to be their weakest point, but now their incompetence about things economic is staggering.
Note to Libs: You don’t have to wish Obama to fail.
EMD on March 2, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Rush was right. We played nice with the Dems for 6 years while we were in power, and the only thing they were to us was a pain in the a$$.
Anyone afraid to piss off the left wing establishment should be thrown under the bus. This is not a time to pander, this is not a time for ‘bipartisanship’…. this is a time to stand pat. Return to our roots: the same roots that gave us Reagan in the 80′s. The same roots that brought us success in the 90′s (we controlled the house and senate eventually). The same roots we largely abandoned in this first decade of the millennium. We are short on power and substance, and it isn’t because we haven’t pandered enough to certain groups of the populace, or appealed largely enough to moderates, but it’s because we’re an empty suit and the public knows it, and in a contest between a pair of empty suits the public chose the flashier one.
We need to return to correct principles so we can have correct policy, not the other way around. We need to collectively grow a pair and man up to the task. We need to realize that it’s not only ok but our duty to be as partisan as needed when principles are at stake. We failed to do so then, and we’re paying for it. We can’t fail to do so now.
Chaz706 on March 2, 2009 at 12:42 AM
And one more thing I forgot to mention: if we do truly run on these principles, and fail, then it isn’t because the principles are wrong, but that it’s too late to save the nation this way. We’ve dilly dallied for too long.
I only hope we haven’t gotten there yet.
Chaz706 on March 2, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Jesus ran on principles and look where it got Him.
No matter what the mob does we MUST stick to principle.
Mojave Mark on March 2, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Amen! In my opinion, this is why Rush is only 99% right. It may take a long time for the Conservative Party to take over, but we’ll NEVER win with the cowards we have as Republicans. There all terrified of the press and that’s why we are in the mess we are in.
Christian Conservative on March 2, 2009 at 1:20 AM
I want Obama, and this country, to succeed. But to succeed, he needs to understand the importance of a free market and capitalism. He doesn’t, or doesn’t care, and probably never will.
Obama has a different agenda, which is less about the country succeeding, and more about grasping for polital power. This involves a massive government takeover of our lives and of private business.
Therefore, I want him to fail.
But unless you’re a true conservative, and really hold these principles dear, you’ll never understand that. It sounds meanspirited, harsh, angry… but listen for a moment…
Socialism is evil. It saps the strength and the willpower from people. It turns people from hardworking, inventive, productive people to fearful, dependent, worker bees who live their lives around their next government handout.
If what Obama plans will destroy the souls of more and more Americans, make them drones forever tethered to the government leash, should we want him to fail?
Yes, we should.
What Obama is trying to do is immoral, and wishing that he fails is the only option.
The more Obama fails at his plans, the more the country succeeds. What’s your choice?
12thMonkey on March 2, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Credit to Hughly: he may not be a journalist, but he was able to get straight that Rush wants Obama to fail, not the country, and because of Obama’s policies, not because of anything personal. That’s much better than I’ve seen from most journalists.
He’s still wrong though. Rush doesn’t want Obama to fail because Obama’s a liberal, but because Obama is pushing for socialism. Much of liberalism is not actually dangerous, just wrong-headed and expensive. Obama wants to institute socialism and universal healthcare, in ways we may not ever be able to roll back. Anyone who wants him to succeed at that is the true idiot.
Why couldn’t Gov. Sanford make that point? Why is everyone so much more concerned about appearing “nice,” than speaking the truth? As much as Sarah Palin gets attacked by the left, she’s probably the rare politician that would stand up and make her point.
No wonder Rush is going to wind up being the leader of the conservatives by default. Most politicians don’t have the nerve to defend an unpopular position.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 2, 2009 at 2:04 AM
If you’re really looking for something that God cannot do, there’s no need for playing games with words. The Bible names several things that God cannot do:
1) God cannot lie (Titus 1:2)
2) God cannot deny himself (2 Tim 2:13
3) God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13)
All suggest that God is “bound” by His own nature. He cannot be false to Himself, by lying, or denying Himself, or committing or being tempted by evil.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 2, 2009 at 2:24 AM
The Left just enjoys punishing anyone who they don’t agree with, whether they are strong or not. Hell, they probably dream of beating up that 13 year old kid who spoke at CPAC.
Speedwagon82 on March 2, 2009 at 2:42 AM
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on March 2, 2009 at 2:04 AM
technopeasant on March 2, 2009 at 5:53 AM
She’s not familiar with the man who should have been the first black president and claims that she’s a conservative?
Case closed.
peacenprosperity on March 2, 2009 at 6:12 AM
Fletch54 on March 2, 2009 at 7:50 AM
well, i see that George is certainly taking his talking points from the WH seriously
blish on March 2, 2009 at 8:30 AM
If you listen to Rush regularly, you will see that he is clearly intelligent and loves this country. He anticipates the left’s every move, and this is why they fear and hate him. They also know very well what he meant when he said he wanted Obama to fail; they’re just using that remark to stir things up, and the Republicans who are throwing Rush under the bus are just pandering to the left, like the majority of them do.
It’s past time for a new party.
americanpatriot on March 2, 2009 at 8:44 AM
” and the Republicans who are throwing Rush under the bus are just pandering to the left, like the majority of them do.”
Some of them are so full of themselves that they would not have taken the time to find out why Rush said what he did. I mean, It has been a few days since Rush has been the talking point on ratbag media.
davod on March 2, 2009 at 9:02 AM
After last Friday’s protests, me thinks that someone with money and clout has to formally incorporate the TEA PARTY as a genuine conservative option to the republicrats running the show now.
rotorhead on March 2, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Because, unfortunately the average ignorant citizen cannot even get to the point of understanding a logical fact. They are emotionally following everything the media and democrats are pushing on them.
Moxie on March 2, 2009 at 9:37 AM
What I don’t get is the stupid way they are framing the argument.
You don’t ever say that you hope a President fails during an economic crisis, because once people start starving due to these policies, they will look very negatively on you and vote the other guy for spite.
What they should be saying is that they don’t want to see the President fail, because that means the economy will tank, but his policies are currently dooming us to failure. You don’t hope for failure, you forsee it. Two ways of expressing similar points with two different reactions.
LevStrauss on March 2, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Can Michael Steele make a successful conservative argument that makes sense? The answer to both is NO! For obvious reasons. An all powerful God can obviously not do something that would cause him to fail…and conversely a liberal Republican chairman of the RNC could never do anything to cause him to succeed as a conservative!
sabbott on March 2, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Do fig trees bear thorns or thistles bear figs?
Can a leopard change his spots?
I rest my case.
Chaz706 on March 2, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Wow! Just wow! Rush just took Michael Steele to the woodshed! Good for him.
silvernana on March 2, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3