Tuesday, November 27, 2012

You’re All Poisonous, Sirs

With the election over, there’s been a lot of finger pointing. And it’s interesting to see how much damage control talk radio is doing to convince people that they aren’t to blame for Romney’s failure. . . which, of course, they are in large part. Anyway, this led to a spat between Rush and two consultants, which I think is worth discussing.

The consultants in question are Mike Murphy and Steven Schmidt. Who they are is irrelevant, but know that they are part of this class of professional consultants who advise campaign after campaign and have done very poorly for the party. What brought this discussion on was the following comment from Murphy:
“The biggest problem that Romney had was the Republican primary. That's what's driving the Republican brand right now to a disaster, and we've got to get, kind of, a party view of America that's not right out of Rush Limbaugh's dream journal.”
And this comment by Schmidt:
“You have these talk radio hosts making millions and millions and millions of dollars a year driving a message of complete and total ludicrous nonsense into the electorate, a lot of it poisonous.”
Frankly, both comments are true. The primary pushes Republicans deep into the fringe and hurts them and the party, and Rush and other talkers are making millions by playing to the angry fringe, which again hurts the conservative brand by presenting it’s most angry 1% views as “the party.”

Rush responded by calling both men “establishment” and re-characterized Murphy’s statement thusly:
"'We need to get rid of conservatism,' is what is he's saying. 'We need to get rid of all these people shouting stupid conservative stuff.'"
...and he said this of Schmidt:
“[These moderate consultants] go to every Republican candidate and they say, 'I'm the guy that can get you the independents. I'm the guy who can run your campaign and get you the moderates so that you will win.' And they do not win. They lose. . . and then after they lose and lose and lose, what do they do? Blame a guy on the radio.”
And that’s true too. These guys do the same thing election after election, trafficking in their supposed experience, but their experience is all about losing and they point fingers, typically at conservatives, the moment it’s clear they’ve lost again.

So honestly, they both have a point, but it’s in the feud that the greater point lies.

Rush and talk radio have become absolutely poisonous. They spent the last four years as the headquarters of the “anybody but Romney” movement. They also spent that time ripping apart every Republican who raised their head as insufficiently pure. They destroyed good people. They sabotaged everything the Republicans did. But what made this worse was that they whipped up their followers over things that never happened. People like Rush started every broadcast for the past four years by whining about some Republican “surrender” they claimed was about to happen. Only, there was no surrender, the talkers invented it so they could sound more pure than “the weak establishment.” And when the Republicans didn’t surrender, the talkers didn’t admit their error, they claimed they were responsible for stopping this imagined surrender. In other words, they falsely accused the Republicans of being weak and then they falsely claimed they stopped the weakness. This poisoned the base against the party.

It also destroys the brand. Ask yourself how these talkers represent conservatism to the public? When was the last time anyone on talk radio did anything to sell conservatism to anyone? They don’t discuss policy, except to knee-jerk criticize those who do. They don’t come up with ideas or ways to reach out to people who aren’t already convinced. All they do is try to act more pure, try to act more outraged, and try to get publicity for their latest books. Do you think it helped the party with women that Rush called Fluke “a slut”? Do you think saying he wanted Obama to fail or calling him a socialist helped with anyone outside his audience?

But let’s not ignore the other side. These consultants are poisonous as well. For one thing, they simply don’t understand how to reach people. They have zero creativity and they fear change and innovation. . . they only want to do what others have done before, even though that doesn’t work. Moreover, they don’t grasp that politics is about selling your ideas to people who don’t have brains to understand them. And critically, they never have understood that image and perception are more real than reality and fact. They have let the brand decay into ruin with a bad sales strategy. And when these consultants fail, as they almost always do, they smear everyone involved. They attack conservatives and claim the party is “too extreme.” They attack moderates and claim they were “disloyal.” They attack the candidate as a fool. They tell lies to make it appear that “if only the party had listened to them, it all would have worked out.” Sound familiar? It’s the same game the talk radio guys play.

Reagan mentioned the Eleventh Commandment for a reason: never speak ill of another conservative. This is the reason. What these two groups are doing is highly destructive. They are using the party as a punching bag, all in the name of their own profit. And together, they are creating an image of a hateful party that is at war with itself as disloyal factions stab each other in the back. What moderate would want to join that family?

This needs to end. It’s time to focus on the people who look to the future, not the people who ruined the past. It’s time to support people with ideas and with an agenda that helps make Americans more conservative, not people who only look to enrich themselves with false claims of non-existent purity or fabricated disloyalty. It’s time for conservatism to be constructive again. Let’s see if we can’t find those people. :)

116 comments:

K said...

I beg to differ - but I suspect you knew that would happen with your provocative essay.

Limbaugh didn't stop anyone from voting for Romney. Quite the contrary. By effectively attacking Obama on a day to day basis, he made Romney seem even more right wing than he actually was and his ascension to the Presidency a matter of national survival.

The issues you have with Limbaugh seem to be that the MSM (aka Democratic party) effectively cast him as the face of the Republicans and then continuously monitored his program to blow up even off hand comments into national scandals. IOWs, you are blaming the victim.

It can not be argued that Limbaugh doesn't bring in and energizes a huge number of voters. Hence his importance as a major target for the left. Republicans "getting rid of Rush" strikes me rather like scraping the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor to keep the Japanese from attacking it. A short sighted strategy, methinks.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

While I understand your sentiment, I have to side with K. The only reason is that Schmidt was also the person who decided early on to re-mold Palin because she wasn't attractive to the base. Last election he blamed Palin for McCain's loss and contributed to the "tell-all" book and the movie of the same name. He even attended the premiere of Game Change. Is this the guy we need?

Murphy I don't know, but sounds like he is from the same group as Schmidt. Rush and Levin actually do attack Obama and company. I also agree with Rush. Fluke is a slut who wants me and mine to supply her with an unlimited amount of contraceptives to allow her to sleep with multiple partners. I know that Rush didn't help, but how was he supposed to know that liberals would spin it? With Schmidt and Murphy, the liberals don't have to spin anything. Google Palin Schmidt. You will find plenty of complaint about Palin by Schmidt. Most of it lies that liberals love.

I actually knew that Schmidt was an ass and should never be allowed near a campaign three years ago. He is a one man disaster. He is the one who advised McCain to keep Palin bottled up after her spectacular debut. I guess he didn't like her Americanisms. He got mad when Palin slipped her handlers to talk to Levin and Rush.

While I do have a bone to pick with Levin and Rush, I have nothing but contempt for Mike Murphy and Steve Schmidt. M M and S S take money to manage campaigns and destroy conservatives or trip them up. Levin and Rush take money because listeners like their message. Levin and Rush verbalize conservatism. M M and S S keep claiming that a kinder gentler Republican is the way to go. Also M M and S S say that conservatives should shut up and sit down. Levin and Rush won't.

Anthony said...

Farnham said:

I also agree with Rush. Fluke is a slut who wants me and mine to supply her with an unlimited amount of contraceptives to allow her to sleep with multiple partners. I know that Rush didn't help, but how was he supposed to know that liberals would spin it?
------
Nobody in the world knew who Fluke was, and that would have remained the case if Rush hadn't chosen to have an extended sexual fantasy about her over the air. If the base was excited by Rush's fantasy, the base has issues.

Birth control comes in handy for women who have just one partner (some married women use birth control) so assuming a women who uses birth control is a slut who has sex with all the men she can and makes sex tapes so all the men she can't fit it can see her makes no sense.

Rush managed to turn a debate that should have been about religious freedom to a debate about respect for women.

*Shrugs* But Obama being in office will probably win Rush more listeners, so I'm sure he isn't worried about whether or not his actions help the Democrats.

Anthony said...

While its true primaries do prompt candidates to run to extremes (Romney got to the right of everyone else on immigration) I still think they are the best way of separating the wheat from the dross.

Having less than 73 debates (I just made up that number, but its probably not far off) would probably be a good idea though.

Joel Farnham said...

Anthony,

If you had listened to Rush on that day, you would know that he was commenting on the faux Congressional hearing that Fluke testified. She never testified in front of a real Congressional Hearing.

His line about her being a slut, well he was asking if Fluke was the definition of a slut. Now, you might construe that as an extended sexual fantasy, but most don't. Extending it that way is like extending everything to Freud.

Also, Rush's popularity is not defined by who is in the White House. If you actually listened to Rush, you would know that.

Anthony, I think you only listen to liberals who listen to Rush to create gotcha incidents. Since you don't, your whole premise is based on a lie.

One more thing. Andrew, here, brings up subjects that some people overlook. Rush does the same. Is that a bad thing? To you, maybe. Rush's original point was that the Democrats staged a fake congressional hearing to listen to Fluke. The media went along with it. Rush, as usual, was pointing out the absolute fakery the Democrats engage in on a regular basis.

I have only one last word for you about Rush. Don't. You are dealing with people who have listened to Rush for years and know more about the subject.

Another thing, the only reason Fluke was talking about it, was to get a Catholic School system to give out contraceptives. Catholic Hospitals do give out birth control pills to help women with regularizing their periods. They do not give out birth control pills to help women get some Friday night action, which is what Fluke wanted.

Anthony said...

Joel,

Your first post you stated you were happy Rush called Fluke a slut because that is what she is. Your next, you stated Rush merely asked if she was a slut. Which is it?

I used to listen to Rush quite a bit now, but I don't make a habit of it any more. Back when I listened to him, Rush made a habit of going to the edge. That is fine and good (other comedians do it all the time) but sometimes one falls over (something other comedians also do all the time).

As for the controversy, bear in mind it wasn't just one remark, in the face of criticism, Rush doubled and quadrupled down on that remark over a span of days.

------
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-03/news/31120485_1_rush-limbaugh-law-student-wrong-words

During the past four days, he turned Fluke into an international media star with fiery rants, calling her "a slut" and "prostitute" who is having so much sex that she can't afford to buy her own contraceptives. He also proposed that she make a sex tape for taxpayers to view.

Patriot said...

Andrew, Andrew, Andrew.......Don't know if it's intentional or not, but you are following Alinsky's Rules For Radicals the same way the Dems do....."Find a target, personalize it, polarize it"....or something along those lines.

The reason Rush Limbaugh (RL) has such an impact, is that he has been for the most part, the lone wolf howling the conservative mantra for almost 30 years, WAY before any other network, news anchor, talking head, radio host...you name it.... His brand of conservatism is quite old-fashioned...almost libertarianistic(sp?) in a way. Conservatism of his ilk will never go out of style based on current exigencies, as it is rooted in traditionalism and proven history. He does not bend with the times in order to "make millions and millions of dollars"...he does it the old fashioned way. These consultants come and go, and see RL as a counterpart to their message, which has basically been Dem-Lite. "Message - I care" "Message - We'll 'fix' welfare, Medicare, Soc Sec, etc....." RL states in his own entertaining and bombastic style, that we need to revisit the whole basis by which we view our government and these Nosferatu programs that the Repubs want to "make more efficient."

Look, we will not have another Reagan in our lifetime. We need to accept that. Reagan had his faults yes, but his overall approach was traditionalist conservative and has been proven over time to generate more prosperity for the "little people" than any liberal-dem or Repub-lite approach.

As far as Fluke, you are correct in the larger picture the right lost sight of due to the focus on polarizing RL's offhand comment about her. But we always fall for the "look..squirrel" gambit that the media and RL haters toss at us. His larger point was that this goes against the Catholic Church's teachings, and to have some 30 year old attorney wanna-be from one of the most prestigious schools in the world, whine that she's not getting her free contraceptives from the school's health insurance program due to "religious" reasons, had to be distracted by the media or else the people would really start to question the whole health care mandate, thus the focus away from the religious aspect to the Alinsky tactic with Rush. Even today, it still has good folks like you "blaming" RL for the media narrative.

So Andrew.......I will not blindly support RL, but I consider him the bulwark and a leader on the front lines of challenging the timeless march towards "progressivism" that we have always been engaged in. We NEED MORE RL's and their occasional un-pc remarks rather than the consultants and their short-sightedness.

Joel Farnham said...

Anthony,

I said I agreed with Rush that Fluke is a slut. I never said I was happy about it.

Also, you say you used to listen to Rush, but you really didn't. If you did, you would never have written this line,

*Shrugs* But Obama being in office will probably win Rush more listeners, so I'm sure he isn't worried about whether or not his actions help the Democrat.

I don't think Rush ever said Fluke was a prostitute. More liberal talking points.

You still are trying your best to denigrate and destroy Rush. Like I said, "Don't." I have listened to Rush since he debuted in Sacramento. I have read his two books. The only thing that has surprised me is his addiction to pain pills. Still, he recovered and is still going strong.

Now, here is a question for you. Do you think Fluke is a slut?

Anthony said...

Farnham,

Here's a transcript from Fox News.
----------


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Oh, yeah, I'm gonna deal with this. I'm gonna deal with it. I think this is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. The left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit! This is "phony soldiers" times ten. Oh, ten times worse than phony soldiers. The reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke -- or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is -- the Georgetown student who went before a congressional committee and said she's having so much sex, she's going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them. I said, "Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You'd call 'em a slut, a prostitute or whatever."

http://nation.foxnews.com/sandra-fluke/2012/03/01/hot-video-limbaugh-takes-blowtorch-fluke-slut-controversy

---------

If you've studied Rush from afar for years and feel like you know him and are willing to forgive/excuse/ignore anything he says which deviates from your image of him, that's fine and good, but he said what he said.

As for your question about whether Fluke is a slut, like I said, the fact someone uses birth control doesn't indicate how many partners they have, so no, I haven't come to any conclusions about Fluke's sex life.

As for me seeking to denigrate and destroy Rush, don't be dramatic. Disagreement is not destruction.

Individualist said...

Anthony

Let please be realistic. rush did not call Fluke a slut because she wanted birth control. He used that term because the women said she needed 3 thousand dollars for it. Let's do the math.

The pill is 8 bucks a month so that is $96. This leaves 2,904 for condoms. Lets assume 20 condoms cost $11. That is 264 packages or 5,280 condoms a year. That is over 14 sex acts a day. Since there is no man alive even with a truckload of viagra that could survive engaging in 14 sex acts a day the woman would by default have to have multiple partners wouldn't she.

But hey if I were to suggest a women that has sex 14 times a day and twice on Sunday were promiscous shame on me right? I don't think so...

Rush was making a joke and one that illustrated the nonsense and the libs were doing their best to make this woman some kind of spokesperson. rush always makes fun of these liberal hacks that go out and tell ridiculous lies. Sso what.... at least limbaugh never wanted baseball players to rape her children.

With all due respect to everyone what we need is to attack the MSM narrative not each other. Limbaugh made the statement and the lowlifes in the press are trying to act "outraged". Fine the party needs to keep the attack up. they need to attack this woman's credibilty. They need to slander her just as the Dems do. Wehn we get called on it just play back the horrid filth by Bill Maher, Letterman the plaboy article that promoted Hate Fing conservative women. On and On!

We tend not to do this because it is wrong but the unfortunate fact is it works. That is why the dems do it. Joe the Plumber asks Obama a question he can't answer... get his tax records.

They play dirty gentleman. They lie, they engage in yellow jounalismn and our problem is we are to nice to fight fire with fire.

Individualist said...

You know this even goes for Todd Akin's comments.

The fact of the matter is that this is how it should have played out in spin zone.

Every Republican should have loudly supported what he said. Whenever libs tried to state any criticism or outrage over the comment the answer should have been this...

"Yeah right, Clinton raped Juanita Broderick so no wonder you libs are obsessed with rapes you are the ones that do this."

or

Planned Parenthood lets any young girl get an abortion no questions asked even if she is being forced there by an adult boyfriend who is threatening her to haver the abortion because if the child is born he will be arrested for statutory rape when the father is named. This actually happened to an x girlfreind of mine when she was 15, the guy was 22.

Is this right! No it is wrong. Damn wrong! But you know what the libs are never fair and they use this nonsense repeating it again and again to develop a false narrative. We can talk of civility and reason and whatever but unforntuantely the majority of the electorate engagtes in this tabloid crap.

I don't like it but as Larry the Cable guy would say... There's your problem!

Tennessee Jed said...

hard for me to say too much here because I do not regularly listen to conservative talk radio. When I do, I am invariably in the car, and unless on a long trip on the interstate it would be rare I would catch more than a segment or part of a segment.

I have a difficult time castigating Rush Limbaugh. I started listening the first year he was on while living in Minnesota. Same listening habits then as now. In a world dominated by liberal news media, he was huge. And, I have heard him make some wonderfully impassioned speeches about conservatism. Does he make mistakes? Does he throw some bombs? Of course.

But, I have heard enough of him to draw some conclusions. He does make provocative comments. Usually, they are made either tongue-in-cheek or specifically to make a point. These comments are always taken out of context, edited, and used by MSNBC or other liberal outlets to paint Limbaugh (and his listeners) as crude neanderthals.

And yes, I think Limbaugh stayed out of the endorsement game for the most part. He has always felt that being moderate is to akin to Democrat light, and is entitled to that opinion. I don't necessarily entirely disagree. And while he pointed out weaknesses of various candidates, he always told voters sitting out the election was not an option, and that Obama was the target, not each other.

Heck, even at Commentarama, I may have been the only pro-Romney guy (well, Tam also) right from the get go. The difference is that we here represent a more educated and rationale group than voters at large. Once it became clear, Romney was the guy, everybody fell in line to support him at this site despite any misgivings any may have had. That is the way it is supposed to work, but I wonder if Newt and Rick saw it that way.

The one talk radio host I don't care for is Laura Ingram. I don't hear enough of her to fairly make that judgement, but I catch snippets on the net, and it seems she is a religious tea party poser. I happen to be an old school northeast fiscal ball buster who is socially libertarian. I am neither proud nor ashamed of that, but at times I've been ripped by all the talk show types as not being conservative enough.

Joel Farnham said...

Thanks Individualist. My reasoning why Fluke is a slut is who she went after to get contraceptives. The Catholic School system and Catholic Hospitals. Only a brazen slut would have the audacity to demand Catholics to give up their principles and supply her with contraceptives especially when there are so many alternatives available.

AndrewPrice said...

K, I figure several people will differ, but it won't change my mind.

I've heard more than enough from Rush and the others to stand by this. They spent the last four years attacking everyone on our side, distorting everything, suppressing the conservative vote, and making us look like assholes to the moderates. He breaks Reagan's 11th Commandment on a daily basis, he shadowboxes against a phantom establishment when he is in fact the establishment, and he does it for ratings.

I used to love Rush, but he hasn't been constructive in years now. And the others are worse.

As for making Romney look more conservative than he is, Romney ran to the right of talk radio in this cycle.

Anthony said...

Individualist,

I've never invested in female contraception, so I'll take your word on the math.

Calling Fluke a slut didn't hurt Fluke (quite the contrary) or help conservatism.

IIRC more than a few conservative websites posted articles talking about how no one was attending Fluke rallies because no one cared what she had to say. She was of use only as a victim of the nonexistent 'War on Women' (in fact, it was just Rush's war for ratings).

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/21/fluke-ofa-fail-in-pics-if-you-hold-a-rally-and-no-one-shows-up-does-it-make-a-sound/

Last but not least, as I've pointed out before, Sandra Fluke was a nobody before Rush singled her out. There was no need to try to destroy her because no one knew who she was.

I agree the slandering one's opponents works, but one has to pick one's targets and pick one's attack. The wrong attack or the wrong target (do you think Letterman's shot a Bristol Palin damaged Sarah Palin or damaged Letterman?) only engenders sympathy for the target and outrage at the attacker.

T-Rav said...

Well, this should be a fun thread. I think I hear my book review calling...

Joel Farnham said...

Dramatic? All I have done is point out your words are designed to denigrate and destroy Rush Limbaugh. Now, Limbaugh can use some criticism, but your words and tone suggest and reinforce the liberal meme about him.

Now, I asked you a simple question. You dodged the answer. It is yes or no. No grays allowed.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I am sorry. I got off on a tangent. Rush for good or bad is going to be with us. Schmidt and Murphy aren't needed, so they should go away.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I have nothing but contempt for Murphy and Schmidt as well. But there's just no point in going into their history because they are simply clones of an entire class of people who need to go. Going into their histories doesn't add anything to discussion because it's not what Schmidt did to Palin that is the problem, it's what he does to the party that is the problem. In fact, going into their history distracts because it makes this about Schmidt when it really is about the whole group.

Your slut comment highlight the problem right now with conservatives: they have no ability to grasp how they come across. What Rush said outraged the non-conservative public (and even many conservatives). It was ill-mannered at best, but was more seen as evidence of deeply, angry, sexist thinking. It played right into the War on Women meme just like Akin's words. In other words, it was Akin-like in its stupidity.

To dismiss that is to be blind to the damage things like this do to the conservative brand. Moreover, to dismiss this as "she is a slut" completely misses the point and only makes it worse. It's like dismissing a racist comment by saying, "but he is a n***" or by saying of Akin, "but he's right, rape's not a big deal."

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, Exactly. Fluke was nobody. She's some idiot from a local law school who went to a Congressional hearing because she wants to be an activist. Even the Democrats were taking her seriously. But Rush tried to turn this nobody into something to upset his listeners, and in the process he lifted her to national prominence and he turned a debate we were winning about religious freedom and Democratic overreach into a national outrage at the sexist troglodyte conservatives.

And you are right about birth control. Honestly, I've never met a woman who doesn't use it and few of them can be considered sluts. And none them like that word, no matter who it's used against.

Your final point is what I'm trying to get across today. None of this is good for the brand. This is about self-promotion on both sides and conservatives need to see that. They are being taken for a ride and their beliefs are being marginalized by both sides.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, There's no way around the primaries. But the primaries themselves aren't the problem -- the talking heads are the problem. Again, you essentially have a group of people who make money by being provocative. That means finding outrage rather than being constructive.

So you end up with a group of talking heads blaring over an over about every fault, real or imagined, about lack of purity, about how they would have done everything better when they probably would have wet their pants if they'd really been on stage... and that upsets the base, who then respond angrily to the candidates, which pushes the candidates further into the anger zone.

Conservatism is not the problem... angry conservatism is the problem.

I do believe that Ronald Reagan would be ripped to shreds by both sides if he ran today.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I wrote this article specifically so you would have an incentive to do your homework. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, First, I hate to break this to you, but I've been listening to Rush since the early 1990s. So I know what I'm talking about. And I am nowhere near the only person who seems these same problems with him or the rest of talk radio.

Secondly, you don't seem to get at all that politics is not about jerking off the base, it's about winning votes.

Third, you have missed the point even though it's right there in your comment that the Fluke thing was manufactured BY RUSH. This wasn't even a real hearing and NO ONE was paying attention to her until Rush said this. Basically, he took a nobody at a non-event and spun it into something to make you foam at the mouth... because that keeps you listening.

Jen said...

Boy, it looks like just the guys are talking on this one, so I'm going to join in the 'good ol' boys club' (snickers).

I listen to Rush on a regular basis, and because of what I do, sometimes I am not within earshot of the radio, but it is on.

I was listening the day he talked about Fluke, and being the only female that has commented so far, I heard him ask a question if a woman like that would be called a slut or prostitute for what she was doing/wanting for herself (so much sex that she couldn't pay for contraceptives).

I recently talked to my sister about RL's comment, and she agreed that he did not call her a slut....

I don't agree with everything he says, but it's my form of entertainment while I work, and I take most of what he says with a grain of salt.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, First, I am not doing anything Alinsky. Rush and the consultants are falling for the Alinksy game. They are the ones pointing fingers at other conservatives and trying to destroy them. What I am doing is calling them on it.

Secondly, I agree with you about Rush until around 2009. He became famous because he was the only person talking conservatism on the radio/television, and he did it with style, humor and smarts. He was clever, funny and great at explaining conservatism to people. BUT that's changed. In the past 3-4 years, Rush and the rest of the talkers have been destructive, not constructive. They have spent that time attacking the Republicans over and over all in the name of some fake purity. They have generated imagined crimes to outrage their listeners. And they have drifted further and further to the fringe because that's where the ratings are. Moreover, while Rush used to be libertarian/conservative, he's not anymore. And the rest certainly aren't. If anything they are not knee-jerk "more conservative than you, but I can't really tell you what I believe... just trust me, I'm more conservative than you." That's a con game.

Third, you are making the same mistake others are making here. You are wrongly assuming that my pointing out that the messenger is a problem somehow means that I'm saying conservatism is the problem. That's wrong.

Jen said...

I didn't finish my comment before hitting 'publish'.

Rush just seems to ruffle a lot of feathers with his comments, and draw attention to things that should have been overlooked/ignored. I get that. He has three hours/five days a week to talk about 'stuff'. If things aren't exciting enough, who's going to listen, regardless of what damage it causes?

I think about all these reality shows that are on (which I don't watch, but have heard of). The more extreme the better. How else are they going to capture the attention span of people today (like, who the f*** is Honey Boo Boo???). Seriously? It's like ADD on steroids. Attention spans are almost zero, and if it's not exciting enough, they are on to the next channel or whatever.

I didn't grow up with parents who were conservative (they found the way much later in life), so I tend to see things from a different angle than those who were brought up as conservatives (and I didn't pay attention to politics at an early age).

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Who is in the White House absolutely affects Rush's ratings. But that's not the issue. The issue is that he is using manufactured outrage to keep his audience today.

In the past, he won people over as a refuge for conservatives. You could tune in and hear him very happily explaining why conservatism was great. He poked fun at liberals in very devastating ways using humor to smack them right in their ideological weak spots, and he helped to lead conservatives to ideas that needed to be supported.

He doesn't do that anymore. Instead, he spends his time turning mole hills into mountains to keep his listeners angry so they stay tuned in.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I completely adopt your comment.

The problem I am seeing is this: If you've studied Rush from afar for years and feel like you know him and are willing to forgive/excuse/ignore anything he says which deviates from your image of him, that's fine and good...

Look at how many times conservatives need to say, "we'll, that's not what Rush meant." That is the problem. Politics is about perception and when you find yourself saying "but that's not what we really meant" then you have lost.

And I'm not just talking about Rush here. Too often, conservatives defend their own idiots by saying, "but that's not what he really meant if you take the time to listen to what he said and understand it." NO ONE DOES THAT! Life is not fair. People don't sit down and analyze what you really really meant. They make snap judgments and those become perception, and in politics, perception become reality.

Conservatives need to learn this. They need to learn to get smarter about the things they say and how to say them.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, The art of the personal attack is to never come out and use a nasty word. It's about finding a way to point out the person's ludicrousness without sinking to the name calling. Use the dirty word and you lose, not the other guy. And in particular, you will always lose when you use a charged word. Rush knew what he was doing, he was trying to be provocative to get a reaction.

On your birth control math, let me point out that are making a mistake. You are assuming that birth control means the pill or condoms. There are many other forms, some of which require doctors visits. The pill in particular can fail, which is why many go for IUDs, which aren't cheap. So your assumption about how much sex she's having is false.

Further, on attacking her credibility, that's fine, but that's all out the window once Rush called her a slut. At that point, it became about his credibility. That's the problem.

Finally, this: They play dirty gentleman. They lie, they engage in yellow journalism and our problem is we are to nice to fight fire with fire... is an evasion. You need to fight smart. And smart is making attacks that are effective and bring people to your side, not turn people off or make them think you're an ass.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, On your Akin comment, the Republicans might as well close up shop if they had followed that advice.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I had the same view of Rush until a couple years ago when his attitude really changed. I think he panicked. I think he saw all these other truly fringe nuts getting bigger and bigger ratings as his audience has been shrinking and then he got caught flat-footed by the Tea Party movement, and I think he decided to start pushing the "I'm more pure than you" game, which he never really did before.

And keep in mind, Rush is just one voice here. All of talk radio has been the problem in the past several years. Not only have they done nothing to promote conservatism, they've spent their time knee-jerk attacking every Republican to come along.

And all in all, my BIG point today is that everyone needs to stop tearing each other down. FOLLOW REAGAN'S ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT AND STOP ATTACKING EACH OTHER! That is what I'm trying to point out here. These two sides are tearing the party apart all in the name of their own financial benefit.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, You lose all credibility when you keep using that word.

Also, Indi's math is based on a faulty premise.

tryanmax said...

I've been following the thread all morning, and there is a lot for me to agree and disagree with on all the little tangents that have gone on so far. But I wholeheartedly agree with the basic point, which is that conservatives absolutely must stop attacking their own.

Rush loves to talk about how Reagan won the nation over when the media was entirely liberal. But that's partly because he had no one on his own side attacking him. Reagan could never win today, of that I am convinced.

Not only do conservatives need to remember the Eleventh Commandment (and stop fabricating loopholes and exceptions to it), they need to adopt a Twelfth Commandment; "Thou shalt not speak well of any Democrat."

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony,

Calling Fluke a slut didn't hurt Fluke (quite the contrary) or help conservatism.

Exactly. It stopped our momentum cold in fact. The Democratic war on women was failing for lack of fuel. Rush saved that meme by handing them fuel. And it certainly didn't hurt her because it made her a celebrity. That opens doors and I'm sure she's thrilled about it.

in fact, it was just Rush's war for ratings)

Bingo. And that's what people need to realize. The talk radio talker's incentives are not to help conservatism, they are to make their income grow.

Sandra Fluke was a nobody before Rush singled her out. There was no need to try to destroy her because no one knew who she was.

Yes, a manufactured outrage.

do you think Letterman's shot a Bristol Palin damaged Sarah Palin or damaged Letterman?

This is the point conservatives don't want to hear because they like Rush and they believe the things he believes. Thus, they WANT to believe that these attacks make the other side look bad and they don't want to believe it blows back. They can see it on Letterman or whenever Pelosi goes too far, but they blind themselves to their own side.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Of course Rush is going to be with us... so will the consultants. But if you're going to suggest that the consultants must go, then you shouldn't turn a blind eye to the same conduct from Rush.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - "And all in all, my BIG point today is that everyone needs to stop tearing each other down. FOLLOW REAGAN'S ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT AND STOP ATTACKING EACH OTHER! That is what I'm trying to point out here. These two sides are tearing the party apart all in the name of their own financial benefit."

Yes, it's like being in a bad production of "Rebel Without A Cause - The Musical". There are many reasons why we lost badly and it wasn't all Talk Radio and it wasn't all Strategy. It was all of the above. We lost because we didn't get enough people to vote and the Chicago Method just works better. We assumed that people were intelligent and they are not. They get their info from sound bites and we gave them long winded debates and statistics. So that's what we have to do. BUt most of all we need to stop sniping and move forward with a unifide voice or perish. And for God's Sake when someone asks about rape DO NOT SAY THAT IT'S GOD'S WILL! That's just ignorant and stupid. And birth control is here to stay, so get over it. Gay marriage too, btw.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, He did call her a slut -- look at the transcript Anthony provides above.

Also, while he is entertaining (or was) the problem is that he's become the poster boy for conservatism. So while you may take what he says with a grain of salt, other people don't precisely because conservatives point to him as a leader. Thus, the things he says end up becoming the voice of the movement.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, The problem isn't just that Rush is extreme or uses outrage to keep his audience, it's the combination of that plus his audience treating him like a leader of the faith rather than just an entertainer. When you cross that line and become a spokesman, along with it comes obligations. That is why the damage he and talk radio are doing is real.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Thank you! That's my point. And it's been lost in the knee-jerk defending of Rush. Talk radio in general... and these consultants... are doing immense damage to conservatism by tearing down everything and everybody on our side. That needs to stop. People need to tell them to stop it.

Rush loves to talk about how Reagan won the nation over when the media was entirely liberal. But that's partly because he had no one on his own side attacking him. Reagan could never win today, of that I am convinced.

Exactly. Reagan would be ripped to shreds today on talk radio for his liberal record and his lack of purity on social issues. AND he would be ripped apart by the Washington crowd as a crazy, extremist Tea Party candidate. He would never win.

Not only do conservatives need to remember the Eleventh Commandment (and stop fabricating loopholes and exceptions to it), they need to adopt a Twelfth Commandment; "Thou shalt not speak well of any Democrat."

Bingo on both points.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I totally agree. We lost for many reasons, all of which combined. The attempts right now to dump this on Romney are bullsh*t attempts to avoid responsibility to make sure that none of the people still around (consultant, Rush, Religious Right, neocons, bloggers, pundits, etc.) need to change their ways.

The only way we will win is if we win over the American public with our vision of a better tomorrow. But no one is offering that (actually, someone might be and I'll talk about him tomorrow).

And you can't give a positive vision of America when you are standing around holding bloody knives whining about everyone else in your party. That simply doesn't work.

In the end, I think the real problem is that the party simply lacks an ideology at the moment. It has no idea what it wants to do except make sure the Democrats can't change anything. We need to move forward. And we need to start picking candidates who look forward.

I think maybe it's time to start outlining an agenda for the future.

tryanmax said...

It's worth noting that liberals never attack their own, even over their policy differences. They do allow their candidates to duke it out with each other during primaries, but the commentators never tear down any of the candidates. Oh yeah, they praised Obama FAR more than Hillary, but they still never said anything bad about her.

There is another exception, in the form of MSNBC and Daily Kos (and a few others). These outlets do make occasional hay attacking Democrats as not liberal enough. The difference is, they still spend 87.3% of their time ripping on all things Republican and conservative. They are also the obvious fringe of leftist media. Right wing media is fast becoming all fringe (if it hasn't already) and they still attack Republicans as not conservative enough about half the time.

Individualist said...

Andrew


What I see online is that an IUD is $400. so After the 400 you have 2600. So drop the number of condoms down to 12 a day. Point is still valid. Fluke was exaggerating the cost purposely to create a faux crisis and all the Dems at the hearing new it. It was a Lie!

Fluke was being promoted by the press before Limbaugh made any statement. That was the point of the dog and pony show. To craft their narrative.

The Dems would never make a negative statement against on of their own. When it is discussed they try to argue the comment is Ok, when that does not work they try to argue it is not meaningful, when that does not work they argue the people complaining are extremists and failing that go to all out character assasination. And they repeat the LIE!

If this were the Democratic party they'd do what I said and they would get away with it.

As I understand it Akin used the wrong word. By Legitimate he meant a legal term menaing forcible rape which is to distinguish from Statutory rape where consent is given but the age is the factor.

Point is that no individual can ever be gaffe free. Yet we play into a trap attacking our own without even reviewing what wass actually said. simply because the MSM creates this narrative. If Akin had not said what he said then they find something else.

This is how the MSM works. The average voter makes their decisions based on this crap and the Republicans are to square to try to win the Yo Mama insult contest.

But let me ask this:

Guchioni wants to HAte F conservative women... Dems are fine...

Letterman wants Palin's daughter raped... dems are fine

Reid says Rmoney pays no taxes... Dems are fine

Maher uses language against Cosnervative Women that make Limbaugh "slut" comment appear to be a statement in solidarity with the women's lib movement in comparison.... dems are fine

But our side has to walk on pins and needles....

Only if you allow the MSM to control the narrative.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's a good point.

1. Liberals never attack their own publicly. They always counterattack the people who made the charge against the liberal to divert attention from the problem.

2. If a liberal pushes too far so that the public sees them as promoting something unacceptable, liberals will dismiss them as "fringe" and quasi-repudiate their views without really doing so. Sharpton is a good example.

3. If they push so far that there is a public backlash, they get dropped like a hot potato and every liberal everywhere says, "he's not one of us, must be a mental case." Weiner is the best recent example of this.

Conservatives don't do any of this. They attack their own over the most trivial difference. They knee-jerk attack any conservative accused of anything. But then they turn around and embrace the crazies and the people who need to be gotten rid of once the MSM attack them.

You are right that their commentators never tear down liberals. They might criticize them, but it's always constructive: "he's a brilliant speaker and he's done better than this."

As for places like Daily Kos, they do attack, BUT they always make the attack on the Democrats for acting too much like Republicans, so it's really an attack on Republicans. Moreover, they tend to keep their attacks confined to places like Daily Kos, which only 1% of the public even knows exists. So while liberals do fight with each other there, the public never hears about it.

Conservatives fight publicly.

T-Rav said...

All I will say about the consultants is this: Steve Schmidt was one of McCain's top people in '08. That should tell you all you need to know.

As for Rush, I didn't hear him call Fluke a slut, and I don't really care if he did. She probably is--whether you want to interpret that literally or metaphorically--and if she wants to pose as some liberated feminist, then that precludes me coming to her defense, doesn't it? :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, It costs more than $400, but that's not the point. The point is that you made a simplistic assumption which was wrong and then used that to justify using a word that shouldn't have been used in polite company. If I'm a moderate, I don't run out and check the prices you quoted, I stop right away with "this idiot doesn't know what birth control is" or I stop with "this asshole thinks it's ok to use the word slut in public." At either point, you've totally lost credibility with me and I stop listening to your point. So how does that help?

On your other point, those are comments that blew up on the liberals. You may not have noticed because the conservative media is VERY good at ignoring facts that don't support the narrative about the MSM, but each of those comments caused those liberals problems and they had to backtrack like mad.

Moreover, liberals aren't the ones with the image problem with women right now. So it's very easy to dismiss an asinine joke by a comedian (who is not seen as a spokesman for liberalism) as just bad taste, but it's much harder to dismiss something similar from a man who claims to be the voice of conservatism, which is seen as hostile to women.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Schmidt is a real piece of shiznit. No candidate should ever hire him. But honestly, no sane Republican should ever hire any of these consultants. They stink. They have no idea how to reach people. Honestly, the whole campaign system is rotten and needs to be purged.

On Fluke, LOL! Yes, she's a big girl and can take care of herself.

Anyway, don't miss my bigger point here. My point is that conservatives need to stop attacking each other as these groups are doing. It's time to move forward with a positive agenda and to stop treating feuding... feuding for which everyone is to blame.

Patriot said...

Andrew....Bravo BTW. You are standing by your guns and addressing the points we are making in a reasoned, knowledgeable manner. One of the reasons why I like the site. Plus the humor.... Bev's "Rebel Without a Cause...The Musical" is pitch perfect!! Sorta like "Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead...The Musical" Love it!

Yet.....We on the right have so few conservative "leaders" who can spell out our beliefs in an entertaining, educational way. Reagan could do that.....Rush does that (or could in your view). We are inundated every frikkin day by the left and their viewpoint that to have a popular spokesperson (as evidenced by his monetary success) is such a relief. Name one other well-known conservative thinker/personality who we can relate to?

I agree about most of your comments of "recent Rush." All along he has stated he is a simple entertainer, NOT the head of the Republican Party. I first starting questioning his loyalty to the cause when he pushed Bob Dole back in '96. That showed me he was more Republican than Conservative. If he made it a point to become another voice slamming the establishment, he might have become fringe, thus affecting his listener base. While his basics are solid, he is too much a Party loyalist for me. I would love him if he was even more of a radical/revolutionary. But that's just me.

We need a better public "face" for our side. Rubio, Ayotte. We just cannot continue to put in front of the msm McCain, McConnell, Boner, etc., all old white men. Why the hell isn't Ayotte the voice of these 3 Senators digging into the Benghazi debacle? No instead we get McCain and Lindsey Graham for goodness sake. We will never get past the media censors with spokes-fools like those two.

rlaWTX said...

I agree with the premises of the article:
[1] we need to stop cannibalizing our own!!!
[2] if talking heads want to claim "leader of the party" status, they need to lead, not sensationalize, terrorize, intimidate, or stir the pot just because there's a spoon!!

I wonder if this is related (Oh, I hate to say this because it will give Andrew more ammo) to the GOP base being (generally) Christian? It has been said by many observers many times that Christians are the only army that shoot their own wounded. We are rough on our own...

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, Thanks! I am trying my best to be reasonable because that's the only way to get my point across. People can disagree, but I'd at least like them to think about the points I'm making.

And truthfully, I totally recognize the value Rush brings and I don't want to lose him either -- nor do I want anyone to give up on him. What I really want to see is that conservatives (i.e. us) begin to hold people like Rush and the rest accountable and demand that they become more constructive. Remind him and Ingraham and the rest about Reagan's Eleventh Commandment and point out the damage all this infighting is doing. Ask them to lay out a positive agenda of what conservatives should be seeking for the country. Ask them to point out politicians who are trying to make that happen.

Don't get me started on Dole. Ug.

I agree that we need a new face. We need a lot of new faces. I'd like to see bright thinkers replace the grumpy defeatists on Fox and at places like National Review. I'd like to see conservative actors banding together and making really good conservative movies and films. I'd like to see a dozen new Rush's... the way he was, not just more people whining about "there's Godless socialists under my bed!" We need people who understand the modern world.

And I'd love to see new people rise to the top of the party. People with a positive vision who present the party as representing modern, conservative America -- not the same old interest groups of the past. It's time for a change.

As an aside, I got a chuckle out of Bev's joke as well.... "Rebel Without a Cause... the musical." LOL!

BevfromNYC said...

Patriot - You've hit on something very important that liberals have that we do not...a great sense of humor. I mean, WE have it here, but in general, Conservatives do not. We need to give bigger voices to Dennis Millers and the real comedians to counter Bill Mahers! We need to laugh at our foibles and foible-ers (new word!) like liberals laugh at Joe Just Bein Joe Biden or brush off the Bill Maher's just being Bill Maher stuff as a comedian's joke.

Nothing pisses the opposition off more than being laughed about...

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Thanks. Those are really my points. All of this infighting is destroying our party and our brand and it needs to stop. And it's coming from all sides, which is the thing people need to realize -- it's not just some secret RINO conspiracy, it's coming from left right and center of the party and it's out of control.

On your point about Christians, I'm honestly not sure. I suspect it's mainly a human thing. You see the same thing on sports teams that lose and in militaries that suffer defeats. There is a human tendency to try to avoid responsibility for their own guilt by shifting the blame to others and trying to destroy them. So I'm not sure if it's anything special to Christians.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. Indi, I didn't mean to be insulting if I was, my point was that politics cannot be fought in a way where people need to give benefits of the doubt. Politics is about first impressions, sound bites, and snap judgments. That's why image is so much more important than substance.

That's why, while I agree that as a matter of substance, Fluke was a loser and Rush was right, substance won't win the day... image does. And Rush made himself look like a bully.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Humor is the greatest weapon in a debater's arsenal. Unfortunately, as you note, conservatives don't seem to get humor -- at least not in politics.

It would help a lot if we have more people like Dennis Miller out there making fun of liberals in ways that exposed their stupidity and made the public laugh at them. It would also help if our politicians lightened up a good deal.

When you are funny, people will forgive you a lot.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, very true.

However, "shiznit" is thought of by a lot of people as ghetto talk, so you should not be saying it. Racist.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I'm all about the ghetto. You should see my new gold grill! ;)

rlaWTX said...

On your El Dorado?

Oh, wait wrong kind of low-class grill...

AndrewPrice said...

LOL! Yes, the wrong kind of grill!

Tennessee Jed said...

I imagine this kind of thing is pretty normal after a loss of this magnitude. Just remember, you may agree with somebody else 81% of the time, mildly disagree on another 9%, and consider that person a fundamentalist extremist or a RINO on the remaining 10%. EVERYBODY tends to be a little guilty on the circular following range at times like these. Remember the libs were busy hiring linguists to change their name from liberals to progressives, and rename taxes and income redistribution "economic justice" or "asking the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share" after 2004.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, That's true. What concerns me is that this has been getting worse, and it got very worse after 2010 when we had incredible success which should have brought everyone back together. I think this is a bad sign.

I also think the problem is really in the incentives here. The Democrats tore each other apart in an ideological struggle. The progressives won and they moved forward under that flag. The people doing the fighting on our side today are in it for their own profit... not ideology. So they have no incentive to ever stop fighting. To the contrary, they benefit greatly from our side continuing to fight and continuing to lose. That is a difference that concerns me a lot.

CrisD said...

I like Rush and thought he was exactly right to ask if a woman needing this much $ for birth control was a slut. It was a funny question but I remember Andrew, you did not like it at the time. I commented on it here.

It turns out that Sandra Fluke's testimony and the flap with Rush was very detrimental to Republicans. And I think it was for a couple of reasons.

The main message that came out of it was not the ludicrous nature and amount of her request but whether a sexually active young woman was a slut. That's it! That is what my daughter and her friends "heard" by the time the sory reached them.

To make matters worse during the debates the liberal debate moderators were asking Romney if he believed in birth control. And of course, we had Father Rick Santorum qualifying his stern attitudes about birth control.

In the end, this helped galvanize the young women's vote which ALL went to Obama.

Now, Time says it actually considered Fluke for Person of the Year. She had her very influential 15 minutes of fame---making my very funny, favorite conservative Rush look AWFUL!!
(Thank God I somehow talked my daughter into sticking with the Republicans, especially when NONE of her friends did!)

AndrewPrice said...

Cris, No, I didn't like it at all. Not that I care about Fluke or the word, but because I saw the effect it would have... it was obvious to me exactly how this would be perceived.

And what you point out with your daughter and her friends is exactly what I knew would happen. Young women everywhere would hear "Rush Limbaugh just called some woman a slut because she wants to have sex." And they would add that to the reason to hate and fear Republicans.

And conservative can try to explain why this should be the case all they want, but simply wishing something wasn't true doesn't make it truth. The truth is that things like this are the reason Republicans lose the single women vote by around 60-70%.

Then you add "Father Rick" railing against "abortion AND contraception" and suggesting that women should be submissive to their husbands, and we were guaranteed to turn off young women.

On the moderator, you're right, it was a set up question. It was a set up to put Romney in a bad spot -- either admit he doesn't believe the things the Religious Right holds dear OR pander to them and lose young women. Which tells us that those two groups can't really co-exist.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. Cris, I agree that the amount she spends in ludicrous. BUT again, it's the way you attack something which is most critical.

tryanmax said...

I am still disturbed by the number of talking heads who backed Father Rick as the "true conservative" in the race. Such endorsements had to be really damaging to the Republican/conservative brand, not only because he is a rabid, big government SoCon, but because he is decidedly not conservative when it comes to basic things like fiscal responsibility or that Constitution thingy.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I agree. And if I were one of their listeners, it would make me wonder if they really have any idea what conservatism is. And it sure as hell would make me wonder who "the establishment" is that they shadow box against if they think a guy who believes in a government solution to every problem, subsidies, targeted tax cuts, and government control over everything in sight is a conservative.

T-Rav said...

I guess the reason this doesn't bother me is I call everyone sluts. Including men. (Hey, if you're gonna sleep around, it doesn't matter whether or not you have a Y chromosome.)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, The thing is it doesn't matter if it bothers you, in politics, all that matters is how will it be perceived. And you really don't want to use that word around young women.

StanH said...

I know your feelings on Rush, Andrew, so I’ll only add, without Rush, no one will carry the message of conservatism. His use of “slut” may have been in-artful as Mr. Romney said about his 47% comment, and Rush and Romney apologized…I wish they hadn’t. You fight from the ground you’re standing on, and using Reagan’s 11th commandment, Rush and Romney should have both been supported, vociferously as the democrats would have done. Use the “in-artful” comments to attack and expand the discussion on the role of government dependency. Instead we got into the classic Republican circular firing squad, and begin barking to the MSM’s narrative…dumb. As far as Mike Murphy and Steve Schmidt, they have a long record of losing, with the exception of Arnold Swartz…. (whatever), and that was a recall election that had the force of the people behind it, no big shakes on Murphy’s part. We need a Lee Atwater running the RNC, Reagan’s political guru, he took no prisoners, and let Reagan be Reagan, a proud unabashed conservative. Let the circular firing squads proceed.

I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving!

Patriot said...

Commentarama commentators......My problem is, and has always been, with leviathan and the growth of an all-pervasive, all intrusive government. Both federal, and increasingly, state. My philosophy is...."Leave me the hell alone!" My family settled in this country in the 1650's and have always moved West to get away from those that wanted to dictate how people should live their lives. I believe our Founders wisdom that government should exist for extremely limited reasons.

BTW, I once heard that there were only 3 Federal crimes at the founding. Treason, Piracy and Counterfeiting. Anyone know if this is true? (LawHawk would RIP).... How many federal crimes do we have today? Look at this:

None of these studies broached the separate—and equally complex—question of crimes that stem from federal regulations, such as, for example, the rules written by a federal agency to enforce a given act of Congress. These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920.html

So...bottom line....a pox on both their houses! New Zealand here I come

BevfromNYC said...

So New Hampshire elected the first transgender Congressperson and she's already has to resign even before she's been sworn in. Apparently she is on probation for committing a federal crime and has quite the criminal past. Oops! How did that get passed the MSM? But then again, being a criminal, she should fit right in...

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, The point is that we need to stop the circular firing squad -- and these guys are the biggest purveyors of it right now.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, Sadly, I don't think you'll fine New Zealand to be any more free. There are very few truly places and few that afford more freedom than the US.

You're right about federal crimes, by the way. The easy answer for any "tough on crime" politician is to make new things into federal crimes. At this point, there is nothing that is not a federal crime... and the Supreme Court has tossed out the double jeopardy clause.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I have no idea how to respond to that. Wow.

StanH said...

I disagree, but that’s what makes life fun. Let’s say hypothetically you were to get rid of Rush, then who will fill that vacuum, FOX/MSNBC/CNN/CBS/ABC/NYT/WaPo…etc. That’s right, no one. Instead we’d have liberal gobbledygook 24/7. I don’t agree with Rush on everything, but he’s on my team and as the great Reagan also said, too paraphrase, “someone that agrees with me 80% of the time is an ally.” The left has been after his scalp for twenty-five years, lets no help them.

I’m with Patriot, I want to be left alone.

StanH said...

Perfect democrat huh Bev. I bet the democrats will defend him.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I don't want to get rid of Rush, I just want him and the others to stop knifing each other.

tryanmax said...

Ah, the good ol' Yoo Ess of Ay! Freest police state in the world.

Jen said...

T-Rav, This is for you.

LINK

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - The only thing I can say is that though we've chosen some real wack-a-doodles, at least the Tea Party vet their candidates' criminal records. Seriously, how did that escape them?

BevfromNYC said...

I also read that Laura Ingraham is leaving talk radio. Let's hope it's true. She's the main culprit in the "Anyone but Romney" crowd.

tryanmax said...

Bev, sorry to say that it's not entirely true. Ingraham's contract with her current syndication service is up and she's out shopping for more money. More proof that it's all about the Benjamins.

AndrewPrice said...

It's always about the Benjamins!

Bev, She was virulently anti-Romney. But the funny thing is that she started totally pro-Romney at the beginning of the primary. I think she just put her finger in the air and went with whoever she thought her audience favored at the time.

As for vetting, that seems to be a problem all around. I don't understand how though. It's easy to figure these things out. Heck a $19 background check should have won the election for her opponent.

Jen said...

Boy, how times have changed. When I was in high school, most girls did not want to be called a slut, ho, streetwalker, prostitute, etc., and yet there were guys who looked for those kind (only one reason for that).

Andrew, I looked for the transcript of Rush's 'slut' comment, and couldn't find it (shortly after he issued his apology). I know exactly where I was when I heard it, and since I couldn't look it up, I went by my memory. Whatever.

I'm with Patriot and Stan, I want to be left alone as well.

Andrew, maybe you should think of becoming a consultant. I'm not being facetious either. The s**t needs to stop, and with your experience on things...

Y'all don't want to know what I think should be done about the abortion issue. It goes along with what I think about stupid people. It's beyond harsh.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, Anthony quotes the transcript above (9th comment).

I would happily be a consultant, but they'd never hire me. The problem is that they believe in "the system." That's why they keep hiring the same people because they have the resumes which the candidates assume they need to have.

Jen said...

Andrew, I read it, that's why I said what I said. I made my comment from my memory at the time, and didn't read Anthony's transcript quote until a bit ago.

Well, do you have a suggestion of how we (all of us here) can get out of the starting gate?

tryanmax said...

BTW, I maybe haven't mention that I've ended my self-imposed exile from RWR to NPR (but that's another story). So, I was listening to the right-wing talkers today and, to a man, they were all defending Grover Norquist in some way or another.

The closest any of them came to acknowledging that Super Grover's phony tax pledge is a bunch of crap was by suggesting that the defectors should have never taken it in the first place. But they certainly didn't indicate why. (Hint: Grover's bizarre interpretation of a "tax hike" makes it impossible to flatten the tax structure. Shh! Don't tell anyone. Grover's a Gawd!)

Rather, they insisted that since they had taken Grover's pledge, they ought to hang from, er, stick to it. That's a great conservative position! /sarc I'm all for keeping promises, but not those agreed to on false pretenses. I'm not sure who these radio guys are mouthpieces for, but they certainly aren't the independent thinkers they promote themselves as if not a one of them can pull their heads out of their rears and see that Norquist is a big fat phony!

Jen said...

Andrew, Your comment of: Stan, I don't want to get rid of Rush, I just want him and the others to stop knifing each other. and:...we need to stop the circular firing squad.

How do we go about this?

I guess I just don't know. I must not know how to play the game as of yet.

T-Rav said...

Jen, I am now very thankful for my unfamiliarity with '70s rock.

Jen said...

Tryanmax, try having supper with your neighbors (2008) when they start talking about making sure they donate money to Obama's campaign, and not lose your mouthful of food. Or, sit together at meal with a bunch of people who were basically praising NPR. Talk about torture.

Jen said...

T-Rav, see, even I have a sense of humor. I never heard of that one until the 80s.

tryanmax said...

Ugh. NPR is just bad radio, for a host of reasons. Don't get me started.

Jen said...

Tryanmax, in any case (RWR radio and all it's faults), welcome back.

I take it that you liked what I left for you the other day?

AndrewPrice said...

Man, I step away for a minute and you people fill this place with comments. What do you think this is? Some kind of blog?

Jen said...

At least we were talking amongst ourselves instead of knifing each other.

Patriot said...

Andy.......One of your better blogs eh?!

Jen said...

Patriot, Yeah, it can function on its own. We don't need no hand holding here.

Jen said...

I almost said, "I think Andrew went AWOL", but then...there he was, if only for a minute.

Patriot said...

Jen.....Agreed....We are all our own Tom Paines with this blog as our "Common Sense" outlet. Dont think for a moment that the blood that ran through our ancestors in the 1770's isnt coursing through our own veins. Sic Semper Tyrannis !

tryanmax said...

Speak for yourselves. My veins run with the blood of Scandinavian socialists. I don't know where I went wrong.

Jen said...

Tryanmax, Or where you went right. I'm with you in that sentiment of "Speak for yourselves.". My families didn't come here until the early 1900s, and they are probably European socialists as well (although I won't say what my ethnicity is--on either side--TMI).

Jen said...

Patriot, I forgot to add Motel 6's phrase of: "We'll leave the light on for you".

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, That's the question. I think the best thing we could do is to shift our spending and our listening away from people who are not constructive and support those who are. Alternatively, we could call or send letters telling Rush et al. that's time they stopped being hurting the team and started to be constructive.

Patti said...

some days i'm down and can't believe where my country has fallen. other days i'm a bit more optimistic. all days i'm pissed.

no one can save this country but us, i just don't know if there are enough of us to do it.

Jen said...

Andrew, How much does this tie in with our BS Boycott? Rush is the only RWR person I listen to, and I've already said I would call him (on another matter)--just tell me what I should say (script please), I don't want to flub it up.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think the radio guys are just doing exactly what they did in the primary.

1. They need to make themselves sound ultra pure.

2. They know that a pledge which says "never raise taxes" SOUNDS ultra pure -- whether it is or isn't.

3. They know that their listeners are primed to see the Republicans as wanting to surrender because that's what they've been preaching.

Start with those factors and the answer is obvious how they will respond. They will claim they are the most pure in the room because they would never violate such a pure pledge and there go those horrible Republicans again... thank God you listeners have me to guide you right and to tell you who to hate.

Very simple.

This position allows them to continue the charade of being most pure, while acting like they are the outsiders who need to be supported so they can stop the weak-kneed Republicans. Compare that with going the other way, which would actually require brainpower to understand and explain why the tax pledge is crap, and it would take will power to stand up to the listeners who will call in all upset that you are no advocating socialism.

No brainer.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, It got people talking, that's for sure, and that's always good. :)


Jen, I'm just really busy and am trying to pop in as I can.

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, you don't live in Minnesota. There's your problem right there. :-)

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot and Jen, I like that. Think of this blog as your version of Common Sense! :)

Frankly, I love the fact that people can come here and speak their minds rationally, even when they disagree. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, I know the feeling. It feels helpless, but it's not. Things change fast in this country and Obama's victory wasn't all that impressive. He got fewer votes than McCain did last time. So that's hardly and endorsement.


Jen, I'm not sure where we are on the BS Boycott.

Mr_Severus_Snape said...

I guess you're right to an extent. Being a conservative, it's hard to say anything bad about Limbaugh... He really helped me "see the light" and brought me into embracing Conservatism.

Limbaugh is only human. He makes gaffes and mistakes like everyone else. The MSM just loves to take some of his comments out of context and spin them any way they want to. He never claimed to being the "leader" of the GOP or Conservatism. So IDK why the MSM is portraying him as such. He's just a political commentator, he has his own opinions, nothing else. Leftist commentators says things far worse, yet they get no attention whatsoever by the media.

Patriot said...

Bottom line folks......We with conservative/libertarian tendencies have NO WHERE TO GO when it comes to getting our word/version of what government should look like. We see the lies that this admin and its media arm propogate every day, yet the repugs are like the fat kid in a game....."Come on Herbie, you can do it!" and we're on the sidelines trying to get Herbie to respond in kind. Come on fools, hit them with their own medicine dammit!!

What was it that drove our founders to pick up a weapon and decide that they've had enough? Why would they risk everything in the faint hope that they could determine their fate and not have it determined for them? We founded this country to get away from an intrusive federal government...call it tyranny, call it monarchy, call it whatever you want, but starting with Hamilton, we've always had the element that desires power consolidated in the "smart elite," not the rabble of the common citizens. "Why they haven't even gone to college for goodness sake, much less an Ivy League school like we did."

I'm past my anger and frustration with the repugs. They are hopeless and full of idiots who sell out once they taste the power and privilege of Washington. Look at the recent revelations that Congress was allowed to trade on "insider information" that came before them in secret testimony!! How f'ing corrupt is that?! Yet we let it go....."yeah, so what, what can we do about it.?"

Folks, I don't have the platform or outlet to effect change in our country. "Vote!" Yeah...right. You think my confidence in the accuracy of voting machines is there? NOT

I am afraid there is only one way to clear out the rats nest in Washington, and I believe there are many more "Patriots" like me out there that are waiting.

To paraphrase Kipling I believe when writing about the Raj: "We stand on the walls of our cities and look down at the barbarians outside. We see their colorful costumes, their fascinating dances, and their quaint customs, and we smile. But they are looking back at us as well, and they are not smiling."

It is time we stop smiling back at our "betters" in Washington

Individualist said...

Online the price was listed as $400 and IUD's are permanant and last for years. So let us assume that it is 3000 to implant then spread that cost over five years then this is 600 a year. You now need 10 condoms per day to justify a 3000 cost. The cost of something is not an assumption, it is a fact.

So how is her 3K per year number validated. And this women did not state some few women spend this, She implied this was an average cost. Medical insurance had to provide women with birth control becasuse they did not have the money to afford it otherwise. Right! NONSENSE

I did not call Fluke a slut. I am calling her a LIAR and anyone who wants can label me what they want I can back my statement up becasue SHE LIED!

As far as I am concerned a slut or a prostitute is in a higher moral plane than Sandra Fluke. Fluke went before Congress to Lie in order to con the electorate into giving away money that is not hers. Sluts and prostitutes have at least the grace to do whatever they are doing weithout going into my bank book so I place them above Politicians and the lying activists that go there to steal money.

As to Maher, he and Stewart are as much the Voice of Liberalism and Limbaugh is the Voice of Conservatism. Yet they routinely get away with horrific trash talking and as far as I can see no liberal politician and certainly not them have ever had any backlash because of it.

This is the problem with too many conservatives. It is the inabilty to undersstand that just becasue the MSM says something that it matters. My Dad is an example. He keeps telling me well everyone thought Romney was rich and he lost becasue of the 47% comment and he just never should have said it. I explained that one it was true and two he was in a private meeting discussing how to proceed with the campaign and three the guy recording the tape committed a crime. his response. Romney should have known and not ever had said it.

Andrew no human being is so damned perfect that they can live up to this standard. how the hell is anyone supposed to adequately plan an election if every word in a private meeting has to be reviewed for public consumption.

The fact is that Limbaugh speaks for three hours every day and the Media Matters progs scower every word said and try to find this kind of moment. Rush made this off color comment based on what anyone would have to assume 3000 in Birth Control costs. Media Matters immediately picked up on it and the press went with it.

Our response should not be to caterwaul in a hair shirt like Cassandra that Rush Ruined all with the magic curse word. it should be to attack. Attack media matters for being creepy in analyzing every work some talk show guy says, attack the press for using these kind of bad jounalistic practices and then trudge up every horrible thing any prog on their network has said and make them answer to that first.

This is what the progs do. They spin they deflect and let's face it. It works. Lies work, if they diden't Romney would be president.

Jen said...

rla brought up something yesterday about the GOP base being (generally) Christian. It got me thinking about something, and I'm going to take a stab at it, and it has to do with them attacking their own. When it's especially the RR, I'm wondering if this is what they have in mind-- Matthew 5:29-30.

AndrewPrice said...

Snape, I'm concerned with talk radio generally, Rush just made this discussion easy. They need to stop sabotaging the party. Rush never used to do that, but he does it all the time now.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, A revolution is never going to happen.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, You are missing the point. Once the name calling starts, all the argument you are making is lost. And this wasn't a matter of Rush making a gaff. This was deliberately provocative for ratings. Juts like his attacks on the Republicans weren't a gaff. They are about ratings.

Individualist said...

Well I only know this Andrew

If Fluke were a Republican going before congress and exaggerating numbers they way she did to support the Pro Life cause all the MSM would be talking about is convicting her of perjury no matter what name she was called.

My point is this. We as Republicans don't seem to get that the "attacks" that come from the left are dishonest. We don't treat them as so and we always end up losing becuase of it. If Rush had not said what he said they would have found someone else somewhere that said something and made a stink about that. And if they could not find anyone saying anything they could use they would then invent it.

I agree that Rush is promoting himself but that is not in our control. Taking it seriously as if it matters is in our control. we should have just acted as if the comment was meaningless and then just talked about the fact that the 3,000 number was completely wrong. Then kept talking about how birth control does not cost 3K burying the pundits in boring facts and refusing to allow any open discussion about the comment. This is how the Dems keep the things Maher said from touching them.

I understand where you are coming from Andrew my point is it does not matter they will invent something if we don't provide it to them.

Post a Comment