Oh my-lanta. You are COMPLETELY confusing the two "controversies" in your bullet points and pulling what I said about the "suicide bomber" Vote Vet.org veteran Brian McGough and claiming that it was a statement about the "phony soldiers" incident several days before.
1) Ryan writes: “In fact he was describing one soldier in one specific instance…” This is patently NOT TRUE. The transcript I have of the call-in to his show is as follows:
Caller (Mike): "What's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue ...
"Limbaugh: "The phony soldiers."
I wrote that quote above - "in fact he was describing one soldier in one specific instance" - on October 10th, regarding the vote vet.org guy McGough - when Rush was in fact referencing ONE soldier. I never wrote that sentence, that you have pasted above, in regards to the "phony soldiers" controversy, that included more than one man, as you have made it seem. It's a blatant falsehood. Here is the exact sentence you pulled that from ...
1.) You claimed that Rush was referring to "anti-war and anti-Bush vets and soldiers." In fact he was describing one soldier in one specific instance (and mind you not in the way you ascribe) so I will expect your retraction of that assertion, that he was referring to these vets or any "group" of vets in general, post haste. - 10/10/07
That was written by me 10/10/07 as I noted above. It was referring to the "strap these lies onto his belt and send him into as many people as possible via the media" quote that Rush made that had everybody claiming he called McGough a "suicide bomber." Which he never did. I NEVER wrote that sentence regarding the "phony soldiers" controversy. I wrote it, referring to the so-called "suicide bomber" quote, because you claimed he was referencing more than that one vet - McGough - when you said he held contempt for McGough and his "assosciates" at Vote Vet.Org. He never mentioned the associates, it was only about McGough - one soldier. And had he mentioned them, I am sure he would have described them as heroic and valiant, just as he did McGough!
The post about phony soldiers was written on October 2nd entitled "A Phony Party." In that post I wrote the following:
He further went on to describe any person who would fake combat veteran status as a "phony soldier." WHICH THEY ARE! The Army and Navy Times have printed articles in which they describe this scenario as spreading so fast that the US Congress is in the midst of passing new legislation to deal with it. At least 7 people In Virginia are under indictment now for defrauding the Veterans Administration -10/2/07
And in that I featured the phony vet Jesse MacBeth as an example of whom Rush was discussing. The plural "soldiers" was applicable by Rush and both he and I noted why - he on his show, and I above.
So as you can see you pulled my quote about McGough and the so-called suicide bomber controversy and cut/pasted it to make it look as if I was talking about the phony soldiers comment when "Mike" called in. I'll assume you did this in error and their was no purposeful deception intended. Either way, a retraction is owed to me IMMEDIATELY.
Another point ...
2) Ryan writes: “(Rush) did not make a metaphorical analogy and was in fact making a literal comparison."
I will admit that the passage you were quoting of my post was, in fact, erroneous in its facts… and I retract the “Rush” part without hesitation. Why the “Rush” part?Because I was mistaken in attributing the “suicide bomber” quip to Rush… it was Bill Bennet making that nice little comment
You’re so busy trying to catch me in a screw up… how did you miss the fact that Rush never said those words (suicide bomber) in the first place? Dumb ass…
Are you drunk? That quote of mine you have above was NEVER written by me!! Foul. I cry foul!!! You have created this out of whole cloth! On October 10th, the one and only time I ever addressed the "suicide bomber" controversy I wrote the following describing how Rush NEVER uttered the words "suicide bomber" and in fact I invited YOU to show me where he did! Here it in it's entirety:
2.) You wrote, "I have read the transcript and to say he was simply making an analogy is flat out untrue." Really? So if not an analogy then you are asserting he made a literal description or comparison in his statement. Where? Where did he literally call the "soldiers", which we now have established was in fact ONE soldier, a quote suicide bomber? How about saying (literally mind you since the claim of an analogy according to you is "flat untrue") that their actions were equivalent to "blowing yourself up in a crowded street." I mean if you have completely dismissed the possibility of a metaphorical analogy then surely you are able to back that up by pointing to the only thing left - a literal comparison in which he uses the words blowing yourself up in a crowded street. Hmmmm, not there is it?
I don't know where the hell you got that quote (the #2 above) but I didn't write it! This is treading dangerously close to a serious Bund ethical violation - on TWO counts. I mean really Titus, look this shit up - you are either guilty of a gross and purposeful misrepresentation or you're out of your gord. Who's the dumb ass now????
Again ...
3) The “transcript” I am stating that I read… in its entirety… is of the program that had the caller identified as “Mike” in which Rush used the term “phony soldiers” and started the whole circus.
Well, that's NOT what you wrote in the 10/7/07 post titled "Limbaugh ... Again." Here it is:
But referring to a decorated veteran of the Iraq war who voiced open resentment about Rush's comments and questions the actions and policy of the Administration as a "metaphorical" suicide bomber is going to be tough to talk away.I have read the entire transcript, and to simply say he was making an analogy is flat out untrue... he was comparing the actions of anti-war and anti-Bush vets and soldiers as tantamount to the actions of "strapping explosives to your belt" and blowing yourself up in a crowded street.
So now you claim you didn't read it! You are SERIOUSLY confusing the two issues. And I know you feel you have better things to do then discuss Rush, we all do, but this is MY honor here, my rep on the line, and you are seriously ass backwards on this whole thing.
Again,
Thus, the word “hero” never occurred in the program that I read. Referring to opposition (politically speaking) service men and women as “hero” four days after the gas hit’s the flame isn’t respect and honor… its damage control.
Mother !#!%&&*!. The HERO comment he made and that I referred to was in regards to the "suicide bomber" controversy. In the second and completely seperate "controversy", which was a seperate and completely different show, he said "they strapped these lies to his belt ...", resulting in the so-called "suicide bomber" controversy. In THAT show he referred to that "strapped" veteran, McGough, as a "hero" and "valiant." Thus I said he showed McGough "respect" rather than disdain. The word "hero" was not said 4 days later as part of damage control covering the Sept. 26th "phony soldiers" incident! GET IT TOGETHER MAN!!
This does not negate the fact that Rush did not speak of MacBeth or his ilk in the program of Sept 26 PRIOR to the “phony soldiers” comment, and didn’t mention it after until more than 3 minutes had gone by and (undoubtedly) his behind-the-scenes staffers might have thought that addressing the point further might be a good idea.
And now you have crossed into guessing what Rush's staff did behind the scenes. Isn't it JUST AS POSSIBLE - since we're guessing here - that he had the MacBeth stuff accumulated prior to his show, that he had knowledge of and had heard of MacBeth and that the libs were parading him around as an anti-war vet PRIOR to his show, so that when the caller "Mike" conversation occurred he had MacBeth on his brain when the phrase phony soldier was uttered? And decided to segway into a few minutes later to MacBeth with his already prepared research? YES, of course that's possible. The difference between our two theories is that you seem to have some mystical power which has allowed you to look into the past, into the EIB studio on that date, and confirm yours.
And by the way, I didn't read nor have I ever heard of the gentlemen you said had a column with the same title as mine (Rush To Judgment), and after this cluster-f*** of a post you made today don't you dare accuse me of plagiarism. Yeah that's right - I immeidately ran to some Idaho rag and ripped this guy off - yeah right. I do funny well, but not clever huh? Well, let me tell you something I find VERY funny - this entire post of yours. It's freaking hillarious. You confused the two controversies, cut and pasted quotes I never made, said first you read the entire "suicide bomber" show transcript and then said it was the other one you read. Look, you knock Rush for being tatstless all you want, I'm not arguing that, I was just trying to set the record straight in response to Harry Reid and you. Clearly it was neccessary. I was half joking when I wrote that you're at your most vulnerable when you're discussing Rush - well the other 50% just fell into place and really pissed me off in the proccess. You wanna fight - then fight fair - don't credit me with quotes I never made in order to make it "look" like you were right. Reread all the posts on these two controversies of Rush's - in chronological order - and you'll see that I am absolutely accurate in what I have written here today, and that you have gone bat shit! This ain't about Rush anymore, this is about your false accusations directed at me, and your inability to keep the two controversies seperate.
Take your Alzheimer's med and try again old man.
FR
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Rushing to Justice
Ryan… I am going to address each of your bullets here with bullets of my own, which will correspond to your points… following so far? The last bullet will be of my own, and not directed at anything specifically mentioned in your post. Answer as you will…
1) Ryan writes: “In fact he was describing one soldier in one specific instance…” This is patently NOT TRUE. The transcript I have of the call-in to his show is as follows:
Caller (Mike): "What's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue ..."
Limbaugh: "The phony soldiers."
Caller (Mike): "The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier… they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country."
Where in this transcript am I missing the part where the caller or Rush is referring to a specific person? They are not. The caller is insinuating that any serviceman or veteran that is anti-war or liberal in his view is a “phony soldier”… a phrase that Rush brought to the table. The context of the conversation that the caller was having with Rush WAS NOT about Jesse MacBeth specifically, it was about anti-war or anti-Bush comments made by soldiers and sailors.
I couldn’t give less of a shit about what Rush read or aired minutes later concerning MacBeth or previous topics discussed on the program the day before. The conversation with “Mike” the Army guy was about soldiers that the Dems and liberals paraded before the media as show-pieces in their anti-Bush campaign… PERIOD. Thus, any soldier or sailor that is anti-Bush or anti-war is a “phony soldier” according to THIS transcript.
2) Ryan writes: “(Rush) did not make a metaphorical analogy and was in fact making a literal comparison”
I will admit that the passage you were quoting of my post was, in fact, erroneous in its facts… and I retract the “Rush” part without hesitation. Why the “Rush” part?
Because I was mistaken in attributing the “suicide bomber” quip to Rush… it was Bill Bennet making that nice little comment on HIS show on Sept 30 (find your own transcripts) in response to the VetVote.org ad run 48 hours earlier. Yes, it was a “metaphor”… technically speaking… that is undeniable, but for it to be an analogy (which Bennet says it was), then the two compared items or actions must be alike to begin with, where they are NOT alike in a metaphor.
It’s a tasteless metaphor… but it’s a damn bad analogy, ethically or grammatically.
You’re so busy trying to catch me in a screw up… how did you miss the fact that Rush never said those words in the first place? Dumb ass…
3) The “transcript” I am stating that I read… in its entirety… is of the program that had the caller identified as “Mike” in which Rush used the term “phony soldiers” and started the whole circus. The VetVote.org ad ran a full two days later, and the comments by Rush (and Bill Bennet) followed two days after that. I have far more important things to do in my life than read and study every single transcript of the Rush Limbaugh Show on a daily basis. The date of the show that was responsible for the hubbub was Sept 26, and the comments both you and I are referring to in THIS bullet happened on the 30th.
Thus, the word “hero” never occurred in the program that I read. Referring to opposition (politically speaking) service men and women as “hero” four days after the gas hit’s the flame isn’t respect and honor… its damage control.
4) I can’t argue the fact that Rush pandered to veterans and servicemen alike in his comments to rebut the VetVote.org ad… I haven’t seen or heard them outside of the quotes on the news (and the Bill Bennet comment I addressed above).
This does not negate the fact that Rush did not speak of MacBeth or his ilk in the program of Sept 26 PRIOR to the “phony soldiers” comment, and didn’t mention it after until more than 3 minutes had gone by and (undoubtedly) his behind-the-scenes staffers might have thought that addressing the point further might be a good idea. I am even giving the man the benefit of the doubt by assuming that it was these same staffers that bungled the “edited” version of the call-in that furthered the beef upon release by removing the intervening minutes of airtime from the comment to the MacBeth part… so tell me that isn't at least a LITTLE objective.
The caller that Rush was speaking to was critical of ANY serviceman that opposed the war or the President… and Rush agreed by supplying the term “phony soldiers” when the caller was talking about these same military critics. The jist of the conversation was that Dems and liberals flaunt the vets and soldiers that are critical, and no others… and they aren’t REAL soldiers.
Now for my bullet point…
Ryan writes: “Any regular listener to the show would know that the regards in which he holds our soldiers, ALL soldiers, is surpassed by no other group of Americans. They have no greater champion in the media at large.”
I won’t ask for a retraction, simply an explanation for the SEVEN times that Rush referred to a retired Colonel of the United States Marine Corps that hung up his boards after 38 years of dedicated service in which he was awarded TWO Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star (with combat V), and the Navy DSM… as well as the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, as the “epitome of a phony soldier”… those SEVEN (7) times each occurring on his Sept 29th program.
According to you, who is an unquestioned regular listener to his program, he honors and accords ALL soldiers and veterans the respect that real and dedicated selfless service entitles them to, regularly and without fail… even if they are radically liberal Representatives from Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District that oppose and slander the President on a daily basis.
Why is THIS man an exception to YOUR irrefutable facts concerning Rush Limbaugh, conservative commentator extraordinaire?
Oh, and one more thing…
Catchy title for the post. “Rush to Justice” I like that.
So did David Reinhard when he wrote his editorial for the Idaho Mountain Express with the same title yesterday, in which he defended Rush quite eloquently.
Stick to the “Trevor” jokes… you don’t do clever very well yet.
1) Ryan writes: “In fact he was describing one soldier in one specific instance…” This is patently NOT TRUE. The transcript I have of the call-in to his show is as follows:
Caller (Mike): "What's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue ..."
Limbaugh: "The phony soldiers."
Caller (Mike): "The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier… they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country."
Where in this transcript am I missing the part where the caller or Rush is referring to a specific person? They are not. The caller is insinuating that any serviceman or veteran that is anti-war or liberal in his view is a “phony soldier”… a phrase that Rush brought to the table. The context of the conversation that the caller was having with Rush WAS NOT about Jesse MacBeth specifically, it was about anti-war or anti-Bush comments made by soldiers and sailors.
I couldn’t give less of a shit about what Rush read or aired minutes later concerning MacBeth or previous topics discussed on the program the day before. The conversation with “Mike” the Army guy was about soldiers that the Dems and liberals paraded before the media as show-pieces in their anti-Bush campaign… PERIOD. Thus, any soldier or sailor that is anti-Bush or anti-war is a “phony soldier” according to THIS transcript.
2) Ryan writes: “(Rush) did not make a metaphorical analogy and was in fact making a literal comparison”
I will admit that the passage you were quoting of my post was, in fact, erroneous in its facts… and I retract the “Rush” part without hesitation. Why the “Rush” part?
Because I was mistaken in attributing the “suicide bomber” quip to Rush… it was Bill Bennet making that nice little comment on HIS show on Sept 30 (find your own transcripts) in response to the VetVote.org ad run 48 hours earlier. Yes, it was a “metaphor”… technically speaking… that is undeniable, but for it to be an analogy (which Bennet says it was), then the two compared items or actions must be alike to begin with, where they are NOT alike in a metaphor.
It’s a tasteless metaphor… but it’s a damn bad analogy, ethically or grammatically.
You’re so busy trying to catch me in a screw up… how did you miss the fact that Rush never said those words in the first place? Dumb ass…
3) The “transcript” I am stating that I read… in its entirety… is of the program that had the caller identified as “Mike” in which Rush used the term “phony soldiers” and started the whole circus. The VetVote.org ad ran a full two days later, and the comments by Rush (and Bill Bennet) followed two days after that. I have far more important things to do in my life than read and study every single transcript of the Rush Limbaugh Show on a daily basis. The date of the show that was responsible for the hubbub was Sept 26, and the comments both you and I are referring to in THIS bullet happened on the 30th.
Thus, the word “hero” never occurred in the program that I read. Referring to opposition (politically speaking) service men and women as “hero” four days after the gas hit’s the flame isn’t respect and honor… its damage control.
4) I can’t argue the fact that Rush pandered to veterans and servicemen alike in his comments to rebut the VetVote.org ad… I haven’t seen or heard them outside of the quotes on the news (and the Bill Bennet comment I addressed above).
This does not negate the fact that Rush did not speak of MacBeth or his ilk in the program of Sept 26 PRIOR to the “phony soldiers” comment, and didn’t mention it after until more than 3 minutes had gone by and (undoubtedly) his behind-the-scenes staffers might have thought that addressing the point further might be a good idea. I am even giving the man the benefit of the doubt by assuming that it was these same staffers that bungled the “edited” version of the call-in that furthered the beef upon release by removing the intervening minutes of airtime from the comment to the MacBeth part… so tell me that isn't at least a LITTLE objective.
The caller that Rush was speaking to was critical of ANY serviceman that opposed the war or the President… and Rush agreed by supplying the term “phony soldiers” when the caller was talking about these same military critics. The jist of the conversation was that Dems and liberals flaunt the vets and soldiers that are critical, and no others… and they aren’t REAL soldiers.
Now for my bullet point…
Ryan writes: “Any regular listener to the show would know that the regards in which he holds our soldiers, ALL soldiers, is surpassed by no other group of Americans. They have no greater champion in the media at large.”
I won’t ask for a retraction, simply an explanation for the SEVEN times that Rush referred to a retired Colonel of the United States Marine Corps that hung up his boards after 38 years of dedicated service in which he was awarded TWO Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star (with combat V), and the Navy DSM… as well as the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, as the “epitome of a phony soldier”… those SEVEN (7) times each occurring on his Sept 29th program.
According to you, who is an unquestioned regular listener to his program, he honors and accords ALL soldiers and veterans the respect that real and dedicated selfless service entitles them to, regularly and without fail… even if they are radically liberal Representatives from Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District that oppose and slander the President on a daily basis.
Why is THIS man an exception to YOUR irrefutable facts concerning Rush Limbaugh, conservative commentator extraordinaire?
Oh, and one more thing…
Catchy title for the post. “Rush to Justice” I like that.
So did David Reinhard when he wrote his editorial for the Idaho Mountain Express with the same title yesterday, in which he defended Rush quite eloquently.
Stick to the “Trevor” jokes… you don’t do clever very well yet.
She's a blooming idiot ...
We are waist deep in Iraq and the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, decides to piss off Turkey enough to have them recall their ambassadors! I mean, when was the last time that was done by any nation? 1941? How did she achieve this you ask? She has vowed to schedule a vote, this year, on a bill that passed committee today. A bill of GREAT importance to the US, overshadowing all problems of our war, the border, and health care - it's to label the Ottoman Empire's massacre of Armenians, during WWI, as an act of genocide.
Well, while we're at it why don't we pass legislation deciding whether Martin Luther used a tack or tape to post his grievances, whether General Patton preferred boxers or briefs and the age old mystery of whether LBJ preferred mesquite or honey BBQ. What the !#$!*&$!! is she doing up there? Just how powerful is that Frisco reefer?
FR
Well, while we're at it why don't we pass legislation deciding whether Martin Luther used a tack or tape to post his grievances, whether General Patton preferred boxers or briefs and the age old mystery of whether LBJ preferred mesquite or honey BBQ. What the !#$!*&$!! is she doing up there? Just how powerful is that Frisco reefer?
FR
I couldn't let this go ...
... probably because I took it as an almost insult to Reagan. Titus you wrote under, "I Can't Pass This Up":
Learn this lesson, Ryan... answer the questions, no matter what they are, as if your talking to your next-door neighbor. You may not like him, or even understand him... but you have to be civil and you want to CONVINCE him you are right. Sell the plan, not the candidate... the candidate wins when the PLAN wins.It worked for FDR. It worked for Truman. It worked for Ike. It worked for Bush Sr. (who voted for THAT candidate? No one... they just hated Dukakis), and it can work NOW too.
I thank you for your concern for my potential political future, if it becomes a reality (and I sorely hope it will) you and Jambo will no doubt have a large role to play. It's an interesting question actually. What makes a successful bid for the presidency - the candidate or his plan for the nation? First let me address the afore mentioned Ronus Magnumus. I think it's flawed reasoning to assume that George H Bush won because people "hated" Dukakis. He was a bad candidate, no doubt there, but Bush Sr. won because people liked (dare I say "loved") Ronnie. Electing Bush 41 was the final stamp of approval on the Reagan administration. Now it may still hold that people didn't vote "for" him, but they certainly were voting "for" something rather than against Dukakis, and that "something" was the Reagan administration. And although America liked and elected Ike twice, it didn't work for Nixon, due to Kennedy's personal appeal (although there was some questionable vote tallying ala Joe kennedy's associates).
And that brings us back to whether it's the candidate or the plan he brings? And that can be applied to post election as well in "approval ratings." Did people 'like" Reagan because of his policies and plans or did they connect with the man? Certainly the factors that go into a presidential win are more numerous then just these two aspects, but we can be certain that these two aspects play a large role. I'm sorely tempted to say that people simply vote their own economic fortune. That has always been what held bill Clinton together. Let's face it, combine his numerous scandals with a crap economy during those 8 years and he would have had 4. The dot com wave and the relative economic success (due to the Reagan tax cut reverberation ... imagine a hearty throat clear there) made his unbelievable political talent for "explaining" away his problems palatable to at least 60% of the electorate.
But let's get back to this question of plans vs the candidate. I tend to disagree with your emphasis on plans being the deciding factor in a win - although I wish that were true. Did Kennedy win due to his personal appeal or his plans? And Ike? The whole campaign was run on and won with the phrase "I LIKE IKE." And there was a reason it worked, outside of it rhyming - they did in fact like him for his achievments in WWII. How about Clinton's 92' run? I would have to ascribe a great deal of his success to his personal ability to sway the electorate, not his "plans." This is post election but after he failed on socialized medicine, open gays in the military, and the middle class tax cut (a plan he DID run on) he was still able to recover his poll numbers and that was due to his personal appeal (gross as that is to write), and not due to some new plan he offered up. My point is yes, "plans" are vital for doing what's right for the country but unfortunately today (and perhaps always) I think a successful campaign has more to do with the personal appeal of the candidate. Take Al Gore ... please (sorry, couldn't resist the old line). America had a 60% plus approval rating of Clinton at the end of his second term, yet Al Gore could not capitalize on that. Why? people just didn't like him the way they liked his boss. I mean he had been a part of that administration, of those "plans" as it were. I remember the way Chris Matthews described Gore's problem - "People just feel they could sit down and have a beer with George Bush, they're comfortable with him." And he was right. Gore seemed robotic, aloof, and just plain strange at times. This is my opinion but I think people remember his "sighs" in the debate and the satires on SNL more than his proposals. In other words if the candidate doesn't have a level of personal appeal then he'll never get a chance to present his "plans." The "likability" factor affords him the opportunity to talk about the plans rather than the plans giving him the chance to be liked. Now, I find that unfortunate but it's reality, especially in the world of 30 second debate responses and 5 second sound bites. They better damn well "like" you if they're going to buy into a plan that takes only seconds to explain.
I welcome your thoughts.
FR
Learn this lesson, Ryan... answer the questions, no matter what they are, as if your talking to your next-door neighbor. You may not like him, or even understand him... but you have to be civil and you want to CONVINCE him you are right. Sell the plan, not the candidate... the candidate wins when the PLAN wins.It worked for FDR. It worked for Truman. It worked for Ike. It worked for Bush Sr. (who voted for THAT candidate? No one... they just hated Dukakis), and it can work NOW too.
I thank you for your concern for my potential political future, if it becomes a reality (and I sorely hope it will) you and Jambo will no doubt have a large role to play. It's an interesting question actually. What makes a successful bid for the presidency - the candidate or his plan for the nation? First let me address the afore mentioned Ronus Magnumus. I think it's flawed reasoning to assume that George H Bush won because people "hated" Dukakis. He was a bad candidate, no doubt there, but Bush Sr. won because people liked (dare I say "loved") Ronnie. Electing Bush 41 was the final stamp of approval on the Reagan administration. Now it may still hold that people didn't vote "for" him, but they certainly were voting "for" something rather than against Dukakis, and that "something" was the Reagan administration. And although America liked and elected Ike twice, it didn't work for Nixon, due to Kennedy's personal appeal (although there was some questionable vote tallying ala Joe kennedy's associates).
And that brings us back to whether it's the candidate or the plan he brings? And that can be applied to post election as well in "approval ratings." Did people 'like" Reagan because of his policies and plans or did they connect with the man? Certainly the factors that go into a presidential win are more numerous then just these two aspects, but we can be certain that these two aspects play a large role. I'm sorely tempted to say that people simply vote their own economic fortune. That has always been what held bill Clinton together. Let's face it, combine his numerous scandals with a crap economy during those 8 years and he would have had 4. The dot com wave and the relative economic success (due to the Reagan tax cut reverberation ... imagine a hearty throat clear there) made his unbelievable political talent for "explaining" away his problems palatable to at least 60% of the electorate.
But let's get back to this question of plans vs the candidate. I tend to disagree with your emphasis on plans being the deciding factor in a win - although I wish that were true. Did Kennedy win due to his personal appeal or his plans? And Ike? The whole campaign was run on and won with the phrase "I LIKE IKE." And there was a reason it worked, outside of it rhyming - they did in fact like him for his achievments in WWII. How about Clinton's 92' run? I would have to ascribe a great deal of his success to his personal ability to sway the electorate, not his "plans." This is post election but after he failed on socialized medicine, open gays in the military, and the middle class tax cut (a plan he DID run on) he was still able to recover his poll numbers and that was due to his personal appeal (gross as that is to write), and not due to some new plan he offered up. My point is yes, "plans" are vital for doing what's right for the country but unfortunately today (and perhaps always) I think a successful campaign has more to do with the personal appeal of the candidate. Take Al Gore ... please (sorry, couldn't resist the old line). America had a 60% plus approval rating of Clinton at the end of his second term, yet Al Gore could not capitalize on that. Why? people just didn't like him the way they liked his boss. I mean he had been a part of that administration, of those "plans" as it were. I remember the way Chris Matthews described Gore's problem - "People just feel they could sit down and have a beer with George Bush, they're comfortable with him." And he was right. Gore seemed robotic, aloof, and just plain strange at times. This is my opinion but I think people remember his "sighs" in the debate and the satires on SNL more than his proposals. In other words if the candidate doesn't have a level of personal appeal then he'll never get a chance to present his "plans." The "likability" factor affords him the opportunity to talk about the plans rather than the plans giving him the chance to be liked. Now, I find that unfortunate but it's reality, especially in the world of 30 second debate responses and 5 second sound bites. They better damn well "like" you if they're going to buy into a plan that takes only seconds to explain.
I welcome your thoughts.
FR
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Ron Paul ... get real.
Yes Titus, he has something to say ... and it''s borderline insanity. Is he a quote "conservative?" Yes, but he's much more than that. He gets going in his diatribe, and he's chugging along, "low taxes this", "reduce government that", and a conservative like me is going with ever increasing volume, "yes, yes, ", and then he does it - "and I'd abolish the FBI, CIA , Department of Education and the IRS..." And you're left saying "yes, yes, WHAT THE F***!!."
Now, while abolishing the IRS isn't the worst idea, the FBI? That's the problem with this guy - the first 80% of his speech is a conservative's wet dream. But then he gets into the last 20 and here trots in a large circus woman in a teddy and you go what the #%!!?&%! did he just say?
And sure, he opposes the war, but have you heard what he wants to do NOW? Simply withdrawal, tomorrow. Look up the transcripts from the debate prior to this one - the Fox News debate that Brit Hume did. The mostly GOP audience is stunned into silence at one point. Hume asked him (I'm paraphrasing, but barely) whom he would describe as "a current enemy of the United States", and he answered "no one." He even went on to say that Iran is not a threat! The guy is sane for the first 40 minutes but the last 20 are spent as mayor of crazyville.
THAT is why he isn't getting any traction - his war on terrorism policies aren't just bad, they're non existent, and his spending, i.e. slash government plans make liberals wake in a cold sweat in the middle of the day (he he - they don't have jobs). NO conservative, outside of the "legalize drugs and prostitution" libertarians, can find themselves agreeing with him on that last nutty 20% of his ideology , thus no constituency.
Look this stuff up from that FNC debate. Yeah, he's great on the founding fathers quotes and low taxes, but unless you'd like to see (as a conservative) the FBI abolished, no war on terror to speak of, and an instantaneous pull out of Iraq, he's simply not your guy.
FR
Now, while abolishing the IRS isn't the worst idea, the FBI? That's the problem with this guy - the first 80% of his speech is a conservative's wet dream. But then he gets into the last 20 and here trots in a large circus woman in a teddy and you go what the #%!!?&%! did he just say?
And sure, he opposes the war, but have you heard what he wants to do NOW? Simply withdrawal, tomorrow. Look up the transcripts from the debate prior to this one - the Fox News debate that Brit Hume did. The mostly GOP audience is stunned into silence at one point. Hume asked him (I'm paraphrasing, but barely) whom he would describe as "a current enemy of the United States", and he answered "no one." He even went on to say that Iran is not a threat! The guy is sane for the first 40 minutes but the last 20 are spent as mayor of crazyville.
THAT is why he isn't getting any traction - his war on terrorism policies aren't just bad, they're non existent, and his spending, i.e. slash government plans make liberals wake in a cold sweat in the middle of the day (he he - they don't have jobs). NO conservative, outside of the "legalize drugs and prostitution" libertarians, can find themselves agreeing with him on that last nutty 20% of his ideology , thus no constituency.
Look this stuff up from that FNC debate. Yeah, he's great on the founding fathers quotes and low taxes, but unless you'd like to see (as a conservative) the FBI abolished, no war on terror to speak of, and an instantaneous pull out of Iraq, he's simply not your guy.
FR
Rush To Judgment
Never Titus are you more vulnerable then when you discuss and attack Limbaugh. Why? Because you hate him more than I love him, advantage Ryan. You wrote ...
I have read the entire transcript, and to simply say he was making an analogy is flat out untrue... he was comparing the actions of anti-war and anti-Bush vets and soldiers as tantamount to the actions of "strapping explosives to your belt" and blowing yourself up in a crowded street.
Funny you didn't quote exactly what he said. I have read and listened to the comments repeatedly, and you have completely misrepresented them here. Not purposely mind you, but in your zest to prove that he is everything you despise you simply painted a half picture, as it was the one which most readily fit your preconceived Rush template. And as it is clear you have no idea what the events surrounding his comments were, allow me to paint a whole, thus more truthful picture.
On October 2nd he was discussing an ad put out by Vote Vets.org. In the ad a wounded veteran named Brian McGough recites a monologue addressing Rush Limbaugh. He is responding to the "phony soldiers" comment (mind you, the Harry Reid version and context that Rush was referring to ALL anti-war soldiers as "phony", which he was not) and he says to Rush, my scars are real, my wounds are real and, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service." Well Rush, in this October 2nd show, responded to the ad and the "attack" (my word) that VoteVets.org was launching in several large media markets via this vet McGough. And he did so this way ....
Limbaugh: VoteVets.org has - - they describe themselves as an organization comprised of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns who oppose current policy in Iraq. They've put together a TV ad that takes aim at me. This ad's going to run on Fox News, on CNN, it's going to run on WMAL radio in Washington, $60,000 ad buy that's going to run, I think, on our local West Palm Beach station down here. And there's a man identified as Brian McCoff -- McGough -- it's M-C-G-O-U-G-H, I'm not sure how he pronounces it, McGo, McGuff -- I haven't watched the ad.
He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there, and he says to me in this ad, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service." You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into.
This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They're not hurting me, they're betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he's saying, in which case it's just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned.
Now let us return to your comments Titus, and see if they hold up to the transcript you claim to have read in its entirety.
1.) You claimed that Rush was referring to "anti-war and anti-Bush vets and soldiers." In fact he was describing one soldier in one specific instance (and mind you not in the way you ascribe) so I will expect your retraction of that assertion, that he was referring to these vets or any "group" of vets in general, post haste.
2.) You wrote, "I have read the transcript and to say he was simply making an analogy is flat out untrue." Really? So if not an analogy then you are asserting he made a literal description or comparison in his statement. Where? Where did he literally call the "soldiers", which we now have established was in fact ONE soldier, a quote suicide bomber? How about saying (literally mind you since the claim of an analogy according to you is "flat untrue") that their actions were equivalent to "blowing yourself up in a crowded street." I mean if you have completely dismissed the possibility of a metaphorical analogy then surely you are able to back that up by pointing to the only thing left - a literal comparison in which he uses the words blowing yourself up in a crowded street. Hmmmm, not there is it? Well, absent a literal description all that is left is a metaphorical ANALOGY. It would seem your hate for all things Rush has caused you to cast aside English Comp I ... and II. No matter, I am here. In fact it is crystal clear that he was making a metaphorical analogy. Any one - outside of rabid Rush haters - can see this. I didn't say it was a "good" one, but one none the less. I will expect that retraction - that he did not make a metaphorical analogy and was in fact making a literal comparison, post haste as well.
3.) Moving on ...You wrote, "As far as I am concerned, this shows that Rush's respect and affection for American veterans applies only to those who do not question or consider the policy..." Again, really? He described the veteran whom verbally assails him in the ad as a quote, "HERO." Sounds like respect and affection to me. Curious as to why someone like you, whom has "read the entire transcript" missed such a powerful word as "hero." That's a mystery. In fact it is clear that he holds this soldier, even after the ad, in the highest regard. He has traveled to countless bases in theater to visit our men and never once, while posing for pictures and shaking the hands of the men, did he stop and ask first if they believed in Bush's Iraq policy. Not once. Any regular listener to the show would know that the regards in which he holds our soldiers, ALL soldiers, is surpassed by no other group of Americans. They have no greater champion in the media at large. So, I will expect a retraction - that Rush's respect and admiration for veterans applies only to those who do not question the policy - post haste as well. He called the man a hero - what more affection can one bestow?
4.)You wrote, "His disdain for service veterans that affiliate with this VetVote.org is shocking in its depth and unfortunate in the extreme." Titus, Titus, Titus. It is clear above that Limbaugh lays the blame for a distortion of his words at the feet at those whom have supplied the veteran, McGough, with his monologue and anti-Rush rhetoric. He describes what they did as the "blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said..." Now, since you read the "entire transcript" I am sure that in writing your little Rush piece that the word "VALIANT" simply slipped your mind and absent your recollection of Rush using words such as "hero" and "valiant" in describing this soldier, you were left with no other recourse than to assume that Rush in fact held "disdain" for this man and his associates. It would seem we have a second mystery indeed. Again, a retraction is warranted as I have demonstrated the use of adjectives on Rush's part that describe this man, an anti-Iraq policy and Bush vet, as a quote "hero" and "valiant." Disdain? Hardly. Rose colored glasses my friend, rose colored glasses.
Don't worry, I understand. It's early, the morning joe hasn't finished percolating, you sleepily activate your computer and as the Trevor & Titus Forever screen saver gives way to your opening web page you see that Rush has stepped in it again. "I knew it!" you exclaim with all the enthusiasm and wild of a child on Christmas morning. "Santa is real", "Rush is evil", and the sheer joy of the moment is so exhilarating, so heart poundingly enjoyable that what, what is this that is obscured in the corner, what is that small, little thing way off in the distance that I don't have time for while I dance to the orgasmic rhythm of Rush being wrong? Look close, don't blink, hold steady now... ah yes, the image is getting clearer now, its coming through, I can make out a letter, now two, it's... it's ... F-A-C-T-S.
And for any young political padewon out there reading this blog, THAT is how you take apart at the joints any argument born of hate.
FR
I have read the entire transcript, and to simply say he was making an analogy is flat out untrue... he was comparing the actions of anti-war and anti-Bush vets and soldiers as tantamount to the actions of "strapping explosives to your belt" and blowing yourself up in a crowded street.
Funny you didn't quote exactly what he said. I have read and listened to the comments repeatedly, and you have completely misrepresented them here. Not purposely mind you, but in your zest to prove that he is everything you despise you simply painted a half picture, as it was the one which most readily fit your preconceived Rush template. And as it is clear you have no idea what the events surrounding his comments were, allow me to paint a whole, thus more truthful picture.
On October 2nd he was discussing an ad put out by Vote Vets.org. In the ad a wounded veteran named Brian McGough recites a monologue addressing Rush Limbaugh. He is responding to the "phony soldiers" comment (mind you, the Harry Reid version and context that Rush was referring to ALL anti-war soldiers as "phony", which he was not) and he says to Rush, my scars are real, my wounds are real and, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service." Well Rush, in this October 2nd show, responded to the ad and the "attack" (my word) that VoteVets.org was launching in several large media markets via this vet McGough. And he did so this way ....
Limbaugh: VoteVets.org has - - they describe themselves as an organization comprised of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns who oppose current policy in Iraq. They've put together a TV ad that takes aim at me. This ad's going to run on Fox News, on CNN, it's going to run on WMAL radio in Washington, $60,000 ad buy that's going to run, I think, on our local West Palm Beach station down here. And there's a man identified as Brian McCoff -- McGough -- it's M-C-G-O-U-G-H, I'm not sure how he pronounces it, McGo, McGuff -- I haven't watched the ad.
He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there, and he says to me in this ad, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service." You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into.
This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They're not hurting me, they're betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he's saying, in which case it's just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned.
Now let us return to your comments Titus, and see if they hold up to the transcript you claim to have read in its entirety.
1.) You claimed that Rush was referring to "anti-war and anti-Bush vets and soldiers." In fact he was describing one soldier in one specific instance (and mind you not in the way you ascribe) so I will expect your retraction of that assertion, that he was referring to these vets or any "group" of vets in general, post haste.
2.) You wrote, "I have read the transcript and to say he was simply making an analogy is flat out untrue." Really? So if not an analogy then you are asserting he made a literal description or comparison in his statement. Where? Where did he literally call the "soldiers", which we now have established was in fact ONE soldier, a quote suicide bomber? How about saying (literally mind you since the claim of an analogy according to you is "flat untrue") that their actions were equivalent to "blowing yourself up in a crowded street." I mean if you have completely dismissed the possibility of a metaphorical analogy then surely you are able to back that up by pointing to the only thing left - a literal comparison in which he uses the words blowing yourself up in a crowded street. Hmmmm, not there is it? Well, absent a literal description all that is left is a metaphorical ANALOGY. It would seem your hate for all things Rush has caused you to cast aside English Comp I ... and II. No matter, I am here. In fact it is crystal clear that he was making a metaphorical analogy. Any one - outside of rabid Rush haters - can see this. I didn't say it was a "good" one, but one none the less. I will expect that retraction - that he did not make a metaphorical analogy and was in fact making a literal comparison, post haste as well.
3.) Moving on ...You wrote, "As far as I am concerned, this shows that Rush's respect and affection for American veterans applies only to those who do not question or consider the policy..." Again, really? He described the veteran whom verbally assails him in the ad as a quote, "HERO." Sounds like respect and affection to me. Curious as to why someone like you, whom has "read the entire transcript" missed such a powerful word as "hero." That's a mystery. In fact it is clear that he holds this soldier, even after the ad, in the highest regard. He has traveled to countless bases in theater to visit our men and never once, while posing for pictures and shaking the hands of the men, did he stop and ask first if they believed in Bush's Iraq policy. Not once. Any regular listener to the show would know that the regards in which he holds our soldiers, ALL soldiers, is surpassed by no other group of Americans. They have no greater champion in the media at large. So, I will expect a retraction - that Rush's respect and admiration for veterans applies only to those who do not question the policy - post haste as well. He called the man a hero - what more affection can one bestow?
4.)You wrote, "His disdain for service veterans that affiliate with this VetVote.org is shocking in its depth and unfortunate in the extreme." Titus, Titus, Titus. It is clear above that Limbaugh lays the blame for a distortion of his words at the feet at those whom have supplied the veteran, McGough, with his monologue and anti-Rush rhetoric. He describes what they did as the "blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said..." Now, since you read the "entire transcript" I am sure that in writing your little Rush piece that the word "VALIANT" simply slipped your mind and absent your recollection of Rush using words such as "hero" and "valiant" in describing this soldier, you were left with no other recourse than to assume that Rush in fact held "disdain" for this man and his associates. It would seem we have a second mystery indeed. Again, a retraction is warranted as I have demonstrated the use of adjectives on Rush's part that describe this man, an anti-Iraq policy and Bush vet, as a quote "hero" and "valiant." Disdain? Hardly. Rose colored glasses my friend, rose colored glasses.
Don't worry, I understand. It's early, the morning joe hasn't finished percolating, you sleepily activate your computer and as the Trevor & Titus Forever screen saver gives way to your opening web page you see that Rush has stepped in it again. "I knew it!" you exclaim with all the enthusiasm and wild of a child on Christmas morning. "Santa is real", "Rush is evil", and the sheer joy of the moment is so exhilarating, so heart poundingly enjoyable that what, what is this that is obscured in the corner, what is that small, little thing way off in the distance that I don't have time for while I dance to the orgasmic rhythm of Rush being wrong? Look close, don't blink, hold steady now... ah yes, the image is getting clearer now, its coming through, I can make out a letter, now two, it's... it's ... F-A-C-T-S.
And for any young political padewon out there reading this blog, THAT is how you take apart at the joints any argument born of hate.
FR
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
I can't pass this up...
Ryan... allow me to use a little IM-speak and ask you a simple question...
WTF???
Did anyone here manage to stay tuned through the Michigan Republican Debate? My GOD! What are these meat-heads doing? McCain is going to recommend Smith's "Wealth of Nations" to a moderator's reading list... when he OBVIOUSLY hasn't read it himself? Huckabee is actually going to CAMPAIGN on the promise that he will do away with the IRS and institute a consumer tax that will pay for the US Federal Budget every year? The guy I actually LIKED (Rep. Ron Paul, TX) starts spouting 50 year old Keynesian crap about the Federal Reserve failures and "first use" economics? What am I, a tenth-grader sitting through his first economics class?
The scariest part of the whole thing is that if the Dems really wanted some "meat and potatoes" ammo for a campaign poster or a TV ad, all they had to do was tune in to this load of absolute TRIPE!!!
Look, I know I have always advocated that candidates need to understand the topics and be able to answer questions with some depth... something the Dems haven't managed in years... but this is over-kill. When McCain started his "Adam Smith" campaign crap... I actually choked! Then people wonder where the attitude that Republicans are elitists comes from... sheesh.
The winners of this debate, in my eyes? HANDS DOWN, the top three were Giuliani, Thompson and Romney (with Romney and Thompson in about a dead heat tie). The rest sounded pretentious and over-blown, and NONE addressed the issue that perhaps the should have been touched on FIRST by the candidates: that there is a BIG gap between the economy of the rich (those earning more than $500,000 a year) and the poor and middle class (those making less than $40,000 a year) and how that gap would be addressed if they won. This question was brought up TWICE by Matthews and the broad (sorry, forgot her name) to no less than 4 of the candidates... but all blew it off.
Its a shame. What an opportunity to pass up... a chance to answer questions that the poeple actually CARE about, and want to hear options on.
Learn this lesson, Ryan... answer the questions, no matter what they are, as if your talking to your next-door neighbor. You may not like him, or even understand him... but you have to be civil and you want to CONVINCE him you are right. Sell the plan, not the candidate... the candidate wins when the PLAN wins.
It worked for FDR. It worked for Truman. It worked for Ike. It worked for Bush Sr. (who voted for THAT candidate? No one... they just hated Dukakis), and it can work NOW too.
WTF???
Did anyone here manage to stay tuned through the Michigan Republican Debate? My GOD! What are these meat-heads doing? McCain is going to recommend Smith's "Wealth of Nations" to a moderator's reading list... when he OBVIOUSLY hasn't read it himself? Huckabee is actually going to CAMPAIGN on the promise that he will do away with the IRS and institute a consumer tax that will pay for the US Federal Budget every year? The guy I actually LIKED (Rep. Ron Paul, TX) starts spouting 50 year old Keynesian crap about the Federal Reserve failures and "first use" economics? What am I, a tenth-grader sitting through his first economics class?
The scariest part of the whole thing is that if the Dems really wanted some "meat and potatoes" ammo for a campaign poster or a TV ad, all they had to do was tune in to this load of absolute TRIPE!!!
Look, I know I have always advocated that candidates need to understand the topics and be able to answer questions with some depth... something the Dems haven't managed in years... but this is over-kill. When McCain started his "Adam Smith" campaign crap... I actually choked! Then people wonder where the attitude that Republicans are elitists comes from... sheesh.
The winners of this debate, in my eyes? HANDS DOWN, the top three were Giuliani, Thompson and Romney (with Romney and Thompson in about a dead heat tie). The rest sounded pretentious and over-blown, and NONE addressed the issue that perhaps the should have been touched on FIRST by the candidates: that there is a BIG gap between the economy of the rich (those earning more than $500,000 a year) and the poor and middle class (those making less than $40,000 a year) and how that gap would be addressed if they won. This question was brought up TWICE by Matthews and the broad (sorry, forgot her name) to no less than 4 of the candidates... but all blew it off.
Its a shame. What an opportunity to pass up... a chance to answer questions that the poeple actually CARE about, and want to hear options on.
Learn this lesson, Ryan... answer the questions, no matter what they are, as if your talking to your next-door neighbor. You may not like him, or even understand him... but you have to be civil and you want to CONVINCE him you are right. Sell the plan, not the candidate... the candidate wins when the PLAN wins.
It worked for FDR. It worked for Truman. It worked for Ike. It worked for Bush Sr. (who voted for THAT candidate? No one... they just hated Dukakis), and it can work NOW too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
