Hope and Change: The Operation Rushbo Distraction
posted at 12:30 pm on March 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
If the first six weeks of the Barack Obama administration can be summed up in one sentence, it would be this: Obama fiddled with Rush Limbaugh while Wall Street burned. Politico reports that the demonization of Rush Limbaugh comes as a deliberate strategy by Obama and the Democrats, who hoodwinked people into believing that a Chicago Machine pol really wanted to change the partisan nature of politics. Starting in October, Obama relied on an old hand in attack politics to devise this strategy — and rolled it out even in the middle of an economic meltdown:
Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.
The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.
Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.
Read all of Jonathan Martin’s report, which makes clear that Carville and Paul Begala coordinated this effort with Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel on their morning conference calls. Clearly, Obama wants to use his media contacts to play rough with critics through coordinated personal-attack campaigns. Martin neglects to mention, though, that Obama himself started off this attack by telling Republicans that they can’t listen to Limbaugh any longer if they want to have access to Democratic-controlled agendas on the Hill.
So far, Obama’s attack machine — and there’s no other term for it — has mostly succeeded. While the markets have lost 18% of their value in the six weeks of his leadership, all Democrats can talk about is Rush. Newspapers and media have followed suit, and so have the blogs. Usually excellent sites like The Moderate Voice and Political Machine have turned themselves into almost nothing but anti-Limbaugh sites, where Jazz Shaw’s light satire of the trend gets completely subsumed in the overwhelming focus on someone who has no direct power on policy or enforcement. Instead of focusing attention on the real policy leaders in Washington — all Democrats — whose every move has received a resounding vote of no confidence from investors, they have allowed themselves to get distracted by a deliberate strategy of misdirection originating in the highest levels of the White House.
It’s reminiscent of Nixon’s enemies list, and it comes from the supposed messiah of Hope and Change.
Rush Limbaugh provides commentary, criticism, analysis, and entertainment, not political leadership, as Rush himself would attest. He has an audience of 20 million people, which makes attacks on him by people like Michael Steele and other Republicans rather stupid. Instead of dividing the Right, they would do better to act as Bobby Jindal did and find ways to unite the Right. But with Republicans out of power, this is mere sideshow. It’s a circus provided by Democrats to cover up their economic incompetence and massively ineffective spending programs. It’s also a harbinger of things to come as this administration fumbles one issue after another, as they will only need to expand the personal attacks against critics rather than respond to the criticism itself.
Operation Rushbo only succeeds if people swallow it.
Update (AP): Boehner called it a “distraction” today too but I think that misses the point. Economic ruin will be with us long after this dust-up with Rush has blown away, which is to say, in the long run this won’t distract anyone from anything. What the Democrats are really trying to do is rebrand the GOP. They’re keenly attuned to that sort of thing, as we were reminded again just yesterday. I also wouldn’t call what they’re doing to Rush an “attack.” It’s more like promotion, albeit promotion for their own ends. In fact, if there’s anyone who benefits unambiguously from all this, it’s Rush himself. The Democrats might miscalculate in overestimating his supposed unpopularity, and the GOP leadership will go on squirming at having to defend or reject the idea of wanting Obama to fail, but all Limbaugh has to worry about is an expanding audience. His show has never seemed so vital as it does right now, which is precisely why lefties like Peter Daou are starting to worry.
Update (Ed): We’re going to agree to disagree. I think this article makes the case quite clear that this is an attack policy devised by experienced hands from the Clinton administration at attack politics. Whether that “rebrands” the GOP is probably secondary; as Carville himself once famously noted, “Your opponent can’t hit back when you have your fist in his face.” So much for changing the tone in Washington.










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 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next »
I dont believe it’s as simple as that, but for the sake of argument, let’s go with it. It doesnt change anything in my two points that show why Ed’s comment about Martin’s reporting is false.
orange on March 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM
He used rush in his bipartisan strategy. That one took a while to figure out because I knew the gop would never work with him.
But it will get the ones he needs in the Senate cover to help him get things passed. It also helps in the elections that he tried but the gop obstructed and a party of no.
getalife on March 4, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Thanks.
INC on March 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM
For those who want to get all what Levin said here is the link.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/#
Hit the audio rewind for 03 Mar 08. Its the first thing he goes over.
Elric66 on March 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM
You should probably stick to the one-line responses. You have a tough enough time making sense with those.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I agree with you overall, insofar as Rush isn’t popular in the overall culture. However, you posited earlier that Obama is changing the tone in Washington. Then you said that
Well, that seems to be the same old political game. Not a change in tone. I’m sorry if I don’t understand your argument (I appreciate your civil tone :D). But I don’t see how Obama has changed the tone when his guys are focusing on Limbaugh and playing politics. As was said above “changing the tone” is a political slogan that gets thrown around during elections. I have no problem saying Obama is playing smart politics. But it’s not “changing the tone.” That’s all.
Btw, glad you agree with Ed re: Jindal. He’s demonstrated a media savvyiness that Steele hasn’t.
darii on March 4, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Well, your opinion is predicated on hogwash.
The GOP is weighing the power of the points made by the keynote speaker at CPAC 2009.
That’s what frustrates you into fabricating distortions, and steering clear of the substance in the fully televised, one hour speech.
Saltysam on March 4, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Nice rebuttal teach.
Care to opine a point or just try again to start being funny.
getalife on March 4, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Moore was invited to the DNC convention in 2004 and sat next to Dhimmi Carter.
Elric66 on March 4, 2009 at 2:26 PM
If you concede that, maybe I’ll go back and read your argument again. But you are wrong in asserting that it makes no difference. Why should I read anything seriously if it means I need to concede an erroneous statement that forms part of your argument. The days when you guys can frame the debate are over. You won’t even concede that this administration, during the campaign, used similar tactics on Palin and JTP. To suggest that they were drawn into this by Rush is only true if you define it in the same way that JTP was drawn into it. Your side can not abide dissenting opinions. It is their MO. Defend the totality of this rather than pick and choose, then come back and spout off.
genso on March 4, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Cower to a radio entertainer or realize they just pissed off the base and need to make right? Because Rush represents a large portion of the base.
darii on March 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Compared to which other radio host? Compared to which other entertainer/pundit? He’s got, what, 20 times the audience of Jon Stewart, doesn’t he?
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM
If his policies are such good ideas, why does he need cover?
Sounds like Hollywood bank robberies where the thieves post lookouts, but that answers my question for me, doesn’t it?
jimmy2shoes on March 4, 2009 at 2:28 PM
What he’s saying is, when you try to write complete sentences, no one can understand them because they are so poorly constructed.
genso on March 4, 2009 at 2:28 PM
You’re an excellent driver.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM
darii on March 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Yeah, the President’s base is much larger.
Do the math.
You should worry about his base.
getalife on March 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Obama never promised that he would stop being a politician, as far as I can recall. Messaging and strategy are important for any political leader who wishes to be effective.
However, by pointing to Limbaugh as the enemy rather than to any elected officials, that truly can be viewed as a change of tone in Washington.
(I appreciate your civil tone as well :D)
Btw, I think that agreeing with “the other side” is important at times. If you *always* agree with one side and always disagree with the other, then you’re probably letting partisanship get in the way of rational thought. That’s one reason I was glad to see the post criticizing the Fox News / Florida Union meeting meme. I wouldnt be interested in visiting this place if I thought I was getting all-right-wing-all-the-time.
orange on March 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Obama = Nixon………
………. now if we can only find “Deep Throat”.
Never mind, little Chrissy Mathews has already volunteered for the job.
Seven Percent Solution on March 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM
I was referring to the poll numbers we’ve been seeing recently. I definitely agree that he crushes Stewart/Maher/Frankin/et al. But as far as the stereotype of Rush in the pop culture? Not so good. I thought Rush was a pompus a-hole until I actually started listening to him six years ago.
Btw, Jim, I love your site. (It’s cool to see you in the trenches here at HA).
darii on March 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM
His base is shrinking everyday.
Elric66 on March 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Briliant rebuttal.
Lets talk about long term and short term political strategies.
I think this topic is short term.
Opine away teach.
getalife on March 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Nah, Nixon didn’t have the Internet.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I have been wondering what else is going on while this focus is on rush.
JellyToast on March 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM
82, 82, 82. 246, definitely 246.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Elric66 on March 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I am not seeing that much in the polls yet.
getalife on March 4, 2009 at 2:32 PM
My oh my, the seminar-calling welfare-queens are busy, busy today. Hope Soros is at least paying minimum wage.
OmahaConservative on March 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Are you taking any prescription medication?
MadisonConservative on March 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Hmm, now that the gauntlet’s been thrown– Is Obama man enough to debate Rush??
Or will Obama be “paralyzed with fear of crossing
theirOUR leader.”ExTex on March 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM
20 point drop since he took over and the economy will get a lot worse. Bush 43 was more popular at this time and he “stole” an election.
Elric66 on March 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I think you’re looking at the “I hope Obama fails” thing too microscopically. The point is about who started the alleged Rush vs Obama feud. Regardless of what exactly Rush meant by “I hope Obama fails”, it’s an attack. It wasnt Rush’s first attack on Obama either.
I mean, in the original post Ed claims that Obama “started this attack”. I simply find that preposterous. Limbaugh has made a living for many years attacking Democrats. He was attacking Democrats before any of us even heard the name “Barack Obama”. It didnt matter which Democrat got elected President – if it had been Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or Joe Biden, etc – Limbaugh would have attacked them. Right? I mean, was there a Democrat that Limbaugh would have embraced with open arms? Of course not. So it’s just silly for Ed to claim that Obama started it.
orange on March 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
His base consist of people calling 911 because McDonalds were out of McNuggets or post on HotAir under the nickname “getalife”. I don’t worry about them one bit.
His voters are a different story, but they are starting to peel off just one month into the debacle. Take Jim Cramer as just one example.
Norwegian on March 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
That’s more of an indictment of the pop culture than him. I didn’t start listening to him regularly until Obama told me not to, and the stereotype is wrong.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I don’t go to too many sites. Which are the lefty sites where you can see that balance– that isn’t all-left-wing-all-the-time. Maybe I can comment there too.
JiangxiDad on March 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I believe these “masses” Aprx. 52% of the vote, voted in good faith for Obama after he went center left in the general, during when most people tuned in and saw a mild-mannered young black man for the first time and who were vehemently shielded from his extreme economic positions and past radicalism by a corrupt media.
He didn’t get a mandate to make this into a socialist county is what I’m saying. You don’t really think the minority party, who are 1st in line to block him in implementing this agenda, aren’t just gonna sit back and watch slack-jawed,,do you?
RepubChica on March 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM
True, and Clinton was more popular at this point as well. And he dropped below 30% within less than a year in a much stronger economy.
Norwegian on March 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Nay, that is just another failed attempt by teach trying to be funny.
Definitely not the last comic standing.
getalife on March 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM
You do realize you’re talking about the President of the United States, right? This isn’t a message-board flamewar or something.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM
K-Mart sucks.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Okay, that’s twice now that movies have been quoted and you have no goddamned clue. Just stop responding.
MadisonConservative on March 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM
You still aren’t addressing anything I said. I’ll stop reading and replying. You are a distraction. Address the left’s history of using these techniques to destroy those with opposing views and then come back. Otherwise, you’re just blah, blah, blah….heard it all before.
genso on March 4, 2009 at 2:38 PM
97X. Bam! The future of Rock and Roll.
MadisonConservative on March 4, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Don’t listen to him, Raymond.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Top secret hopenchange.
jimmy2shoes on March 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. The Democrats have been going after Rush for years (Clinton, Harry Reid smear letter, etc.). Personally, I not sure what the tone in Washington was that needed to be changed. Probably it’s partisanship.
Going with this definition of the bad tone in Washington, I don’t think that Obama has necessarily demonstrated bi-partisanship. Focusing on Rush as the problem merely means that the right wing partisian positions that Rush represents are his problem. I would posit that he views opposition to his left wing policies as being part of the despised partisan tone. To this extent, if Rush wasn’t around, would Obama be more open to right wing positions held by law makers? I’m going to say he wouldn’t.
darii on March 4, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Go ahead, drive more people to tune in to Rush to see what he’s all about. After a little while, more people will suddenly be educated and armed with common sense. Good plan!
Grafted on March 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Uh-oh. 15 minutes till Wapner’s.
MadisonConservative on March 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Enough already, have some compassion.
neuquenguy on March 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Hey I am glad when the enemy posters actually attempt to dialogue instead of the usual one post snipes that they are usually known for. Keep it up getalife, it at least shows there is more to you than a Jon Stewart inspired quote.
ClassicCon on March 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM
My favorite is Glenn Greenwald’s.
orange on March 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM
You are correct. My bad for responding to silly posts. I thought this was a political discussion with adults.
Obviously, I stand corrected and will stop responding to childish games.
My bad.
getalife on March 4, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Link please.
darii on March 4, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Must suck to live a humorless life. Oh wait, you’re a liberal. That’s normal.
MadisonConservative on March 4, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Very sparkly, very twinkly.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Well, I’ll agree that we’re talking at cross purposes. My point is, and always has been, that Ed was mistaken by claiming that Obama started this.
You brought up Palin and Joe the Plumber. I fail to see how anything involving those two either proves or disproves Ed’s statement.
So yeah, I guess we’ll give up. Have a good day.
orange on March 4, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Actually, I find the comedy channel very entertaining but your posts not so much.
And teach is not even close to funny.
Sorry.
getalife on March 4, 2009 at 2:48 PM
That’s your example of not all-left-wing-all-the-time. Glenn Greenwald.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Glenn Greenwald’s blog:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
orange on March 4, 2009 at 2:48 PM
I think you’re misreading my intent, Jim–or I’m misreading yours–we might need to check our navigation lights. What I’m saying is that the presser was orchestrated to deliberately set Gibbs up for the shot. Think of the reporter as the set up guy in a volleyball game with Gibb’s being the person to spike the ball over the net. Which actually makes this even more despicable than Gibbs just calling out a private citizen by name on his own because it means that the media is actively aiding and abetting in the process making the media nothing more than a propaganda arm of the Obama administration.
Matt Helm on March 4, 2009 at 2:48 PM
What was the underwear line? I forget.
neuquenguy on March 4, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Haven’t ever read him before. A quick look at his columns posted now at Salon show that he does criticize Obama, (although from the left,) and is very much anti-Bush, and pro-NY Times.
I’ll keep looking for some anti-left stuff though. Thanks.
btw, what’s your s/n over there. Same as here?
JiangxiDad on March 4, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Of course, you don’t have your underwear.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:49 PM
You have got to be kidding. “Rush started it” is your argument? Is Obama the first president who’s ever been criticized?
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:50 PM
He routinely criticizes members of both parties when they show disregard for human rights, lawbreaking, etc.
orange on March 4, 2009 at 2:50 PM
It looks like Raines is getting caught up in the Countrywide scandal. I hope that loose thread will be pulled.
genso on March 4, 2009 at 2:51 PM
QANTAS. QANTAS never crashed.
MadisonConservative on March 4, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Of course he’s not. All the more reason it’s bizarre for Ed to have claimed that Obama criticized Rush before Rush criticized Obama.
orange on March 4, 2009 at 2:52 PM
The latter. We agree that it doesn’t matter whether Gibbs was responding to a question or not. Responding to questions is his job, and he’s not doing a good one.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Oh, good grief. Rush has been criticizing Obama months. Obama’s the president, not Limbaugh. You’re starting to sound like a teacher on the playground.
ddrintn on March 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM
I’ll slow it down for you: The. President. Of. The. United. States. Shouldn’t. Be. Getting. Into. Flamewars. With. Radio. Hosts. Or. For. That. Matter. Any. Other. American. Citizen.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM
For not being left-wing enough.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM
I doubt you think this toon is funny:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/luckovich/index.html?cxntlid=nav_mtr_opn_lckvch
But he is one of my favorites.
Very few cons are funny.
getalife on March 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM
I think they’re in the President’s sock drawer.
jimmy2shoes on March 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM
I think his shift ends at 3:00. You may have to go even slower.
JiangxiDad on March 4, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Agreed. Gibbs is a boob. Of course, he works for an administration of boobs starting with the Boob in Chief.
Matt Helm on March 4, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Aww, you weren’t supposed to tell. This ruins orange’s point. mean.
JiangxiDad on March 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Well, at least he’s consistent. Will tentatively check him oout when I have some time. But his book titles have already made me a little queasy.
But in the spirit of hopenchange, I will look at him (something I wouldn’t normally do) because you have been such a pleasant commenter. I have to go. I hope you have a good day! :)
Oh, one last point, I agree with Treacher that Rush didn’t start this. Especially insofar as the MSM pays attention to Obama and thus Obama can shape media focus and Rush cannot, Obama first brought Rush up in the meeting with GOP members re: the stimulus. If Rush had claimed to be the leader of the GOP, then he would have started this….
But anyway, have a good day everyone! I’m off to work for my local state GOP rep.
darii on March 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Priceless.
jimmy2shoes on March 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Pro-NY Times? Well, you said it was a quick look at his current columns, so I’ll give you a chance to look around a bit more:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/09/hoyt/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/12/gordon/index.html
And more recently:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/15/fisa/index.html
orange on March 4, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Even the leader of the gop. He is fair game.
That victim card will not play Jim.
getalife on March 4, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Things are heating up for obama. I assume he’ll be off to Hawaii soon to avoid the press and show off his boobs.
JiangxiDad on March 4, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Yeah, well, the AJC, like most papers, is designed for people who only like to look at the pictures.
I suppose the cartoon is hilarious to moonbats. Not terribly original, though.
ddrintn on March 4, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Rush rules and no whimpy Paul Bigala strategy is going to get me to stop supporting him
HondaV65 on March 4, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Meh, we’re all circling the drain at this point…
Wyznowski on March 4, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Hi, I’m Mike Luckovich. You can tell I am at the height of advanced political satire by drawing Bush with giant pointy ears.
Your taste is execrable.
MadisonConservative on March 4, 2009 at 3:00 PM
LMAO. As we said,attacks from the left.
JiangxiDad on March 4, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Many troll on this thread there are…………
Obama the Chi-Pol Thug made a crucial and very consequential mistake by elevating Limbaugh to essentially the same level as The One himself: Clinton started to do this after losing the House and Senate in 1994, but backed off quickly
Limbaugh is a better debater, has a more comprehensive understanding of politics, much more actual knowledge of how the economy works, and can disengage from the ‘party leader debate’ at any time with no ill effects–while Obama has baggage and more baggage and can’t walk away from what he’s started without looking like either a fool or a coward ( or both )
In their desperate attempt to find someone to demonize the Thugocracy has made a potentially fatal mis-step. When they fail–and the economy keeps wallowing sideways and down–the Democrats are going to realize that they’ve “Carterized” themselves
Janos Hunyadi on March 4, 2009 at 3:00 PM
C-H-A-R-L-I-E. My main man.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 3:01 PM
The idiot messiah really started doing all this during the campaign. Towards the end of the campaign, he made a big change in tactics and went directly after Fox. It was very weird, if I recall correctly. But that was so many idiotic statements, qualifications, blatant lies, twisted quotes, America-killing legislation, enemy-fondling, media-siccing, …. events ago. It’s tough remember through the constant deluge of insanity.
progressoverpeace on March 4, 2009 at 3:01 PM
So your definition of bi-partisan is permitting Republicans to vote on bills that they had no opportunity to help draft or to modify?
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Absolutely correct.
JiangxiDad on March 4, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Hannity in particular. And he complained to the NYT that if he had Fox in his corner, he might have been up a few more points. Not that he’s a thin-skinned crybaby or anything.
Also, what Janos said.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2009 at 3:04 PM
So Greenwald didn’t work out. What other lefty sites should we check out to see that it’s not all-left-all-the-time?
I’d love to read your comments at other sites to see how you are received there. What’s your screen name and which sites?
JiangxiDad on March 4, 2009 at 3:04 PM
This may have already been stated in the 425+ comments that I have not read (all of them anyway), but I’m sure the Obama team is happy to have this Rush Limbaugh distraction picked up by the BHOLovin’ media that are more than happy to do their dirty work for them. They are certainly on the job covering that very important news, rather than focusing on the economy and the underhanded way the BHO administration is pulling the economic carpet out from under our collective feet. With a distractable public slowly waking up from the trance induced by the recent elections, maybe our real hope will be a never-ending chorus of the truth about this administration coming from folks like Rush Limbaugh who have a microphone and a national audience and in turn, that audience storming Washington with their protests about this wretched already administration.
Monkeybrains220 on March 4, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Rush called it from the beginning. He said this was an obvious Alinsky tactic to use a polarizing figure, put a face to the opposition and incite the grassroots. He said it likely came from Obama himself to distract from his terrible policies.
Now it has been confirmed. Record lows in the stock market, trillions down the drain with nothing to show for it except payoffs to the democratic party, rising unemployment, and Obama picked a fight with Limbaugh to distract from this.
There should not be a single Republican in a leadership position who does not point this out when some idiot in the apparatchik brings up the famous quote: I WANT HIM TO FAIL.
L’etat ce n’est pas Obama.
chunderroad on March 4, 2009 at 3:08 PM
See…you didn’t have to read all of the posts. You pretty much summed up the opinions with your post.
genso on March 4, 2009 at 3:08 PM
~ ~ Jay Cost
Only because you believed grown-ups to be in charge. It’s Kindergarten time at the WH, with Rahm the biggest spoiled and out-of-control brat. Anyone who believed this not to be the boy-king emperor with no clothes was naive. The lower classes don’t know better. That Mr. Cost fell for it is simply amazing.
Entelechy on March 4, 2009 at 3:09 PM
That should have read … apparatchik press…
chunderroad on March 4, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Or in the case of the porkulus bill conference report.
The Republicans weren’t even allowed to read it before they were told to vote on it. (There were no Republicans on the confernece committee.)
MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2009 at 3:10 PM
It’s the beginning of the March 3rd program.
FloatingRock on March 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM
An HA commenter (sorry that I don’t recall who) said last night that s/he had concluded that either Obama wishes for this mess to be solved and is horrible at it, or wishes for things to go sour, intentionally (so he can claim credit when they reverse a bit). This is from recollection…
In either case, what have we done?
Entelechy on March 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next »