Well that Newt is long since dead.

What we have now is a guy who sits on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and talks about the evils of Global Warming … and now this.

The fight is gone from the soldier. The gas needle is on empty here.

He took an oblique shot at Newt (also not by name) at CPAC too. Watch the clip of Gingrich on MTP insisting that it’s “irrational” to hope Obama fails but okay to hope he changes his mind on policy; opinions differ as to whether that’s what Rush meant all along. And with that, I’ll join Ace and Patterico in the “enough already” camp and let you have at it.

Opinions don’t differ. The scuzzy left knows exactly what Rush meant… I want Obambi to fail as well. I wanted him to fail in getting elected because he’s a socialist-come-communist, and what he wants for this country is nothing at all related to what I want for this country. Why is the World should I change my mind about Bambi and his goals simply because he is now in a position to carry them out? For goodness sake! All the more reason to hope that he fails.

The dishonesty that so many are engaging in is to equate Bambi’s goals with what’s good for the country, thus conflating his failure with the nation’s failure. His failure is the nation’s success – because what he wants in no good for any of us.

I think you make a valid historical point, although I would suggest politically and culturally early 20th century Russia, and early 21st century America are vastly different.

There is no doubt that we are not nearly the same culture as Russia was. We have never been. But, we still ended up with a marxist in the White House and a Congress that is more than willing to do anything he wants, so, functionally – in terms of our vulnerability – we are in the same spot.

Mostly, I was just trying to put the idea of the man failing versus his policies failing into, what I consider to be, proper perspective. Failed policies don’t insure that they will be stopped (as the French found out as their revolution proceeded). I understand that Rush only meant that he wanted the idiot messiah to fail in his socialist policies (or implementing them) but I think that the real issue goes far deeper.

“Squishy right”? I would say Allah, and a few others, are more centrist, or left-leaning, libertarian. They see more a problem with Rush, and probably you and me, than Obama.

Joe Pyne on March 10, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Sadly, I must agree with you on this, though I would put Allah a touch more to the right.

Frankly, I don’t see why some people on the squishy right are having such a problem understanding this very simple point.

progressoverpeace on March 10, 2009 at 9:29 PM

I think you make a valid historical point, although I would suggest politically and culturally early 20th century Russia, and early 21st century America are vastly different.

“Squishy right”? I would say Allah, and a few others, are more centrist, or left-leaning, libertarian. They see more a problem with Rush, and probably you and me, than Obama.

That he wished for Obama to fail? That is not what he said. Rush said he wished for Obama’s socialist policies to fail.

Joe Pyne on March 10, 2009 at 8:53 PM

I go much, much further than Rush on this. Wanting policies to fail doesn’t stop the damage they do and, often, doesn’t stop further policies along the same lines from being implemented. All of Lenin’s policies were total failures, yet Lenin succeeded in spite of those policy failures. What Russia needed was for Lenin, himself, to fail – which didn’t happen. Russia had to suffer through decades of pure hell because of Lenin’s success, even in the face of the total failure of his policies.

The idiot messiah must fail – not his policies, but HIM – and he must fail so miserably that he is run out of town (if not thrown in jail) and anyone associated with him, or his politics, is never taken seriously again. That is what is needed.

Frankly, I don’t see why some people on the squishy right are having such a problem understanding this very simple point.

I wrote the following over at Ace’s place:

Ace: “For the great crime of distancing themselves from a politcally troublesome statement. ”

That is the issue, right? You say that Rush made a “politically troublesome statement.” Right?

OK, now, what exactly was the “politically troublesome statement”? That he wished for Obama to fail? That is not what he said. Rush said he wished for Obama’s socialist policies to fail. You knew that, didn’t you? Unless Rush has said something different in the past few days, I think all of us would agree with that statement. No one, who is conservative, wants Obama’s socialists policies to succeed. No argument about that, right?

Therefore, since the left-wing media has created whole-cloth a statement that Rush is credited with making that he did not, in point of fact, make, why is it “politically troublesome”?

I get you think Rush has an ego, he does, and that he says incendiary things on occasion, he does, and I get you want him to watch himself for the sake of the conservative movement. What I don’t get is why, when this is an obviously media driven controversy, you think that anyone who agrees with that statement is bowing before the “great god” Rush Limbaugh? I do not want Obama’s socialist/marxist policies to succeed, period!!! If that is a politically “troublesome” statement, then so be it. If the only way we can compete in the arena of ideas, and win elections, is to deny our basic beliefs, then I don’t care if we ever win another election. Now, if you counter with, “but the independents are offended by such statements,” then so be it. Independents need to be enlightened about the truth of what socialism can do, and if that means upsetting them a little in order to get them to take notice, then I’m all for it. Lincoln upset a whole lot of good decent Americans when he pushed for abolitionist policies in his administration, and thank God he refused to back down. Just because independents don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong.

I believe that is why you have so many of us confused. You of all people know what this president is capable of doing. You know he could send this country into bankruptcy within months. You know he could cause us to be vulnerable to another terrorist attack. Why do you think it worthwhile to take shots at all of us who agree with you, for the sake of a comment Rush Limbaugh made? A comment that I believe you would agree with. But, maybe I’m wrong, or maybe we aren’t understanding what you are trying to say. I admit, you have me baffled on this one.

I pose the same question to you, Allah. What is your beef? I don’t get it.

Frankly, and I hope I am wrong, it looks like you, and the other more libertarian members of the team, are getting steamed at the conservative members of your blogs for being, uh, conservative.

Libertarians have their own view of things – I agree with some, but disagree with most of libertarianism – and have their own party. We come here to discuss conservative beliefs, ideas, and politics with other conservatives. We don’t come here to have our conservatism blasted by libertarians who don’t appreciate conservative values, like marriage, morality, and the protection of innocent life.

We don’t besmirch your libertarian leanings, don’t besmirch our conservatism.

I think that is what is going on here.

Never ever want your country to fail.

You will lose.

getalife on March 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM

I hope that’s true for Obama in 2012.

“For the first time in my adult life, I’m proud of my country.” Michelle Obama

Newt and your three mavericks are in good shape.

The rest of the gop not so much.

getalife on March 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Because Mavericks win elections. /sarc

How about a little respect for our President instead of wanting him to fail?

Not my president, I still have not seen documents proving he is an American citizen.

Dissent is patriotic right?

I’d state I’d want him to fail but it is already clear in less than 50 days he already has.

How about a little respect for our President instead of wanting him to fail?

getalife on March 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM

It is Bushitler or Bush-Hitler or something else? I can never get that straight.

The President saved a bush depression.

He is on his way to greatness.

lol

If this was a serious assessment by you based on the limited time 0bamessiah’s been in office, I’d say that you would make a excellent candidate for a guest on a new “Kids Say the Darndest Things”, once hosted by Art Linkletter.

How about a little respect for our President instead of wanting him to fail?

getalife on March 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Let’s say that 0bamessiah’s attempts at reviving the economy work. Would you honestly tell those who believe that success shouldn’t be defined just by end results but also by the methods chosen to reach certain ends, and who also believe that 0bamassiah’s economic plan is immoral and/or unethical, that they should wish for his success even if they believe how he defines success is wrong and/or bad?

Do you understand that what you and people like you are espousing is that everyone should get on board the S.S. 0bama, whether or not it goes against their own principles to do so? No, you don’t understand this, and I will tell you that’s related to you being a Leftie…

His policies are working to save a bush depression.

His policies are creating the Obama depression!
It has nothing to do with Bush.

Your candidate has emerged for 12.

It is Newt.

getalife on March 10, 2009 at 12:54 PM

You wish!
Newt’s a loser.
My candidate and that of a lot of other people is Gov. Sarah Palin!

His policies are working to save a bush depression.

Your candidate has emerged for 12.

It is Newt.

Never ever want your country to fail.

You will lose.

getalife on March 10, 2009 at 12:43 PM

We don’t want our country to fail, it’s Ogabe’s policies we want to fail because they would cause the country to fail.

You will lose.

The President saved a bush depression.

He is on his way to greatness.

How about a little respect for our President instead of wanting him to fail?

getalife on March 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM

There was no “Bush depression.”
What the markets are reacting to is the future and the prospect of what Obama’s programs and policies will do the economy which is clearly disastrous, unprofitable and punitive to those businesses, companies and individuals that are successful.

getalife on March 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM

With no respect at all to you or your wet eared arrogant little boy President, get bent. You guys on the left spent 8 years wanting GWB to fail in fighting a war against terrorists; and now we’re supposed to line up and wish success on William Ayer’s bff? I don’t think so. Obama isn’t on his way to greatness. The media will say it, even as the nation burns around it; you’ll believe because you worship the arrogant little shite, but all he’s going to do is try to turn this country into a clone of Europe. That’s not greatness. That’s mediocrity. It’s a 2 party system; you opposed Bush because apparently you liked Islamic terrorist more than him. Well, we oppose Obama. And it wasn’t a depression he inherited from President Bush; he’s turning it into one because him and that feckless band of a**clowns in Congress aren’t doing anything about it.

So in your world, one full of both dualistic political clarity and wolf pelt loincloths, where should the Libertarians go?

Rob Taylor on March 9, 2009 at 11:46 PM

The Libertarians will probably follow whoever makes weed legal. As long as they can smoke a garbage bag a day, they don’t care who’s in power.

Does he support AGW alarmists? NO. Does he support a cleaner environment? YES. I have no problem with that as a conservative outdoorsman.

Totally irrational and even insane position. Whatever Al Gore does, you MUST run AS FAR AS YOU CAN from him. Like, for example, I saw him once eat soup with a spoon. Needless to say, spoons are now outlawed in my house.

Same with global warming. There’s numerous articles and presentation that say that global warming is real. Very few actual scientists make a conclusion that because the problem is real, that implies that whatever the left suggests as a possible solution is automatically valid.

Now, could we do this? Accept the scientific consensus on the problem, and yet reject political games and pork handouts to left wing organizations that do nothing to solve it? Like, yes, institutionalized racism is a real thing. No, affirmative action doesn’t solve it. Yes, global warming is real but no, destroying American economy doesn’t solve it. Could we say that?

The answer is: OF COURSE, NOT. That would make us whimps in the eyes of fat people on the radio. And if we have at least one clearly defined goal, it is to please them.

Anyway, is it just me or are the gays particularly black racist?