Article

2009-03-03 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2009-03-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#1 He apologized. Good for him. Apology accepted. The left will make hay of this. BFD. Move on. We've got work to do if we don't want to become serfs..or worse.

Posted by Gluting Fillmore6653 2009-03-03 07:20|| 2009-03-03 07:20|| Front Page Top

#2 "I was maybe a little bit inarticulate

What happened to Limbaugh's thick skin? And of course Rush is never "inarticulate" or at a loss for words. Nor has he ever taken a verbal swing at anybody. Nothing Steele said was inaccurate. Limbaugh takes great pride in being "incendiary" and he is very entertaining. Limbaugh owes Steele the apology. Just my umble opinion.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-03-03 07:38|| 2009-03-03 07:38|| Front Page Top

#3 Limbaugh owes Steele the apology

scoff. An apology only matters if the intent was benign to begin with. You must be a leftist as they always value words and feelings over substance. What we need right now is meaningful action if we are to avoid the blatant grasp for power happening right before our eyes.

They aren't on your side....fool.

Posted by Gluting Fillmore6653 2009-03-03 07:49|| 2009-03-03 07:49|| Front Page Top

#4 Steele had a good point. There's a difference between being a bomb thrower and a motivator. It sounds as if Limbaugh moved from the one to the other at CPAC, which is good.

But there's also a difference between being a motivator and being a leader who can get things done. That's Steele's job at RNC.

I haven't forgotten that Rush organized a move to make Obama the candidate over Clinton. Sure, it seemed to many like a clever move at the time -- but how many people here are happy about the results? Do you really think that Hillary, with all her faults, would be doing as much damage as this administration is?

Posted by lotp 2009-03-03 08:07|| 2009-03-03 08:07|| Front Page Top

#5 lotp, are you suggesting Hillary! would be less of a socialist? Why would that be?

Posted by Hellfish 2009-03-03 08:25|| 2009-03-03 08:25|| Front Page Top

#6 Lotp's point, I take it, is that Hillary is less of an America-hating race baiter than O, and with far less of a cult of personality, she would be doing less damage than the False Messiah.

Posted by ebrown2 2009-03-03 08:35|| 2009-03-03 08:35|| Front Page Top

#7 She's also not a radical leftist, just a run of the mill one. She doesn't want to destroy the country, just 'improve' it in incremental ways.

Big difference. Remember, she walked AWAY from Alinsky while still quite young. Her opponent embraced him all out.

Posted by lotp 2009-03-03 09:03|| 2009-03-03 09:03|| Front Page Top

#8 The surprising comment by Steele on his CNN interview was his endorsement of Affirmative Action. Not that his position prohibits him speaking about his personal beliefs but his suggestion that the RNC should temper their opposition to a failed social engineering scheme. This isnt a reach out as much as it is a reach around. The conservative message needs to be articulated better not changed to accommodate the squeamish. Hiring Madison Avenue to re-brand the RNC as a way to appeal to larger audience is fine as long as core principles are retained. If Steele hasnt noticed, The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are quite well crafted. Try this one on for size MichaelEqual opportunity for all. Cause the DNCs Equal outcome for all is getting stale by the Trillions.

Posted by DepotGuy 2009-03-03 09:22|| 2009-03-03 09:22|| Front Page Top

#9 I am not at all convinced that BO would have won had it not been for 9/15 and McCain's ridiculous suspension of his campaign. Whereas, Hildebeast would have been a much more formidable candidate under any circumstances.

But then, I also believe that by 2012 BHO, the New New Deal and the Old New Deal will be seen as inadequate to address the needs of the 21st century.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-03-03 09:41|| 2009-03-03 09:41|| Front Page Top

#10 Excellent point NS. Barry knows his "campaign of economic crisis" won't have any legs by 2010 or 2012. I suspect his staff are all hard at work designing a new crisis or conflict to confound the little please long before 2012.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-03-03 09:48|| 2009-03-03 09:48|| Front Page Top

#11 But then, I also believe that by 2012 BHO, the New New Deal and the Old New Deal will be seen as inadequate to address the needs of the 21st century.

That is supposing Obama's and Soros wild plans have not succeeded in their goals: destroying the United States either through submission to mullahs or through secession. But this time, since I am fond of them I advise you (the secessionists) keep the hymn, the flag, the name, the Constitution and after winning, force a twenty years reconstruction period on the losing side (aka the side of losers) in order to desintoxicate them from socialism.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2009-03-03 11:00|| 2009-03-03 11:00|| Front Page Top

#12 "campaign of economic crisis" won't have any legs

Beso,
FDR was elected after 3 years of economic crisis, and re-elected twice more on his (failed) handling of it. Absent WWII, he probably could have been re-elected on it a third time. When you control their food supply, the people will tend to vote for you rather than risk starvation.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-03-03 12:55|| 2009-03-03 12:55|| Front Page Top

#13 Excerrent point Glen. My old man used to say if FDR hadn't died, he's STILL be president. That was in the 60's.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-03-03 13:00|| 2009-03-03 13:00|| Front Page Top

#14 Steele made the same mistake as the Dems - talking about Rush. He loves it when someone like Reid or Emmanuel or Obama mention his name. He adds beaucoup bucks to his bank account since it attracts all the popcorn eaters to his show to watch the blood flow on the streets. He engenders controversy since it allows him to grow the audience and become even more influential. That's his schtick and he lives by it. People keep making the same mistakes with Rush.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2009-03-03 13:32|| 2009-03-03 13:32|| Front Page Top

#15 Rush has ZERO experience in real matters of State, he's an entertainer nothing more, allowing him to be equated with a leadership role of the GOP is foolish and an easy way out, dont let his comments replace your own thought processes

Posted by Think for yourself 2009-03-03 14:54|| 2009-03-03 14:54|| Front Page Top

#16 he's an entertainer nothing more,

Agreed, Think for yourself. He entertains by agitating. Although he does a great service by getting critical information to his audience, thus confounding the gatekeepers at the legacy media, his insistence on keeping emotions boiling is harmful rather than helpful, as his vast audience then is fixated on issues that are too often not very important, to the detriment of critical issues.

Nonetheless, Mr. Limbaugh's audience is a critical segment of the Republican party, so he must be appeased. Mr. Steele did the politically necessary thing, even though what he originally said was completely true. Mr. Limbaugh is going to seriously injure the Republican party if he continues to indulge in such egotistical nonsense.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2009-03-03 15:08|| 2009-03-03 15:08|| Front Page Top

#17 So Rush is an incendiary entertainer. I thought we all knew that. But he wouldn't be as successful as he is if he didn't articulate the views of a very large segment. If he tried to tell people that Affirmative Action is good, that we can't deport illegal aliens, that we can't put tariffs on plastic crap from China and we can't resist Obama's move to socialism he would very quickly lose his audience. People like Steele ignore him at their own peril just like McCain did.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-03-03 15:56|| 2009-03-03 15:56|| Front Page Top

#18 lotp, Fair enough.

Posted by Hellfish 2009-03-03 17:38|| 2009-03-03 17:38|| Front Page Top

#19 E.U. is onto something. Although Rush is pretty much always a blowhard, he is right, even insightful, often enough that he matters. Like him or not.

Posted by no mo uro 2009-03-03 17:38|| 2009-03-03 17:38|| Front Page Top

#20 I think he reflects his audience, Undisciplined (fat) , Inciniary, (jingoistically so) , Unable to correlate information in a meaningful way (reflects ONLY his agenda), and very angry all the time weather Bush is in the White house or Obama.

Posted by Glating Sforza2920 2009-03-03 18:37|| 2009-03-03 18:37|| Front Page Top

#21 Glating S #20 this country might take a clue from Rush and China, and start being more self-centered, and anti-illegal immigrant! it would do us some good to stop being the shoulder to lean on internationally, quit bellyaching about what a-holes we are to poor foreigners, and start cleaning up our own act. as for Rush's audience, im not sure how you can systematically separate out his audience as fat? 60+% of americans are obese! and from what ive observed i think thats a low estimate! if about every other person in the US is fat, its safe to say many arent rush listeners? i have to agree he does seem surly a lot of the time, maybe has blood pressure problem.

Posted by haveanoodle55 2009-03-03 19:22|| 2009-03-03 19:22|| Front Page Top

#22 Lotp, the One didn't create the US EUropenization---it was the work of decades by your entire "educated" classes. Things became soo bad, only a Second American Revolution can help. And, if the One cannot provoke it, who can?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-03-03 21:43|| 2009-03-03 21:43|| Front Page Top

23:50 49 Pan
23:49 49 Pan
23:48 g(r)omgoru
23:45 49 Pan
23:25 49 Pan
23:18 g(r)omgoru
23:12 Procopius2k
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:09 g(r)omgoru
23:09 JosephMendiola
23:08 g(r)omgoru
23:06 Procopius2k
22:57 Barbara Skolaut
22:52 Barbara Skolaut
22:50 Barbara Skolaut
22:46 George Thomble6396
22:21 Eric Jablow
22:20 JohnQC
22:14 Icerigger
22:02 ed
21:58 ed
21:51 Frank G
21:50 g(r)omgoru
21:47 g(r)omgoru