Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

It's not a problem when GOP presidents continue their vacations when Americans are killed.

It's not a problem when GOP presidents continue their vacations when Americans are killed.
Reagan continued to ride at his ranch when 62 Americans were killed by USSR. No one trashed Reagan at the time. Because IOKIYAR! (Click on image.)

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

MICHAEL STEELE KISSES LIMBAUGH'S ASS

UPDATE BELOW

I knew it was just a matter of time before Michael Steele would have to crawl on his hands and knees and grovel at the ungulated feet of the Hindenburg of Gasbags to beg for forgiveness.

For a moment, when he honestly said what he thought (that Limbaugh was an "entertainer" and "incendiary") I believed that Steele would replace el Rushbo as the head of the GOP, and that he would be a forceful, forward-looking head of the RNC.

Whew! Thank Darwin that didn't happen!

Rush Rulz!

He will remain the undisputed Head of the Dittoheads and of a party that refuses to face what Rush actually represents: Old ideas, anger, racism, sexism, and irrelevancy. He will continue to lead his clueless minority back to the past.

And we all thank him for his efforts to keep his followers there.

El Rushbo: He's bigger now than ever!

UPDATE:

Gov. Jindal joins Mr. Steele in ass-kissing:

Rush Limbaugh may insist that he is not, as others have suggested, the head of the Republican Party. But all of the GOP's key players are kissing his proverbial ring in the aftermath of his latest anti-Obama episode and intra-party squabble.

The most recent offering of support came from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal who on Monday night said that he was glad to see RNC Chairman Michael Steele apologize to Limbaugh after Steele had called the conservative talk show host's program "incendiary" and "ugly."

"I'm glad he apologized," said Jindal, appearing on CNN's Larry King Live. "I think the chairman is a breath of fresh air for the party. As I said before I think Rush is a leader for many conservatives and says things that people are concerned about."

Ross Douthat: Not only do I think this is true, I've actually said it myself! (Though Reihan said it first.) But if you accept the parallel with Oprah, then you also need to recognize that if American liberals treated someone like Ms. Winfrey the way the adoring CPAC-goers treated Rush - not just as a great communicator and entertainer, but as an arbiter of what their movement is and ought to be, and what their party should be standing for - they'd look like starstruck fools. And rightly so. So I'm glad to hear Hewitt say that he thinks of Limbaugh as "communicator, a pundit and an entertainer," rather than a "leader." But I wish that more conservatives understood the distinction.

and:

Limbaugh is first and foremost an entertainer, and to mistake him for a strategist or policy wonk or political philosopher is to make a category error of epic proportions. Letting Rush define who is and is not a conservative, or what the national GOP can and cannot stand for, is the equivalent of the Democratic Party inviting the writers of the Daily Show to hammer out their party's platform - or the Roman Catholic Church turning the next edition of the Catechism over to Oprah.

23 comments:

Dave Miller said...

Shaw, even as we are happy to see this internal debate for the GOP'ers, the bigger story is how GW has now repudiated his rationalization for a number of actions taken by his Admin in the wake of 9/11.

Do you think we will be hearing any news of this from our conservative friends?

Doubtful.

Always Right said...

What a simpleton Steel is, he don't even know that Rush is on his side. Steel said:
“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.”
Mr. Steele, that was very kind of you to reach out to Rush, after all, a great deal of the Republican base think Rush makes a lot of sense. In fact, maybe you may find a consulting position or speaker role for Rush in some fashion. Remember the Republican base. The people who got President Bush elected for the second term. -- sure disappointment was soon to follow, nevertheless, the Republican base is still alive and well. We're the ones who didn't vote in the Nov 2008 election.
Mr. Steel, you screwed up. You better say you are sorry

Shaw Kenawe said...

Always Right,

You need to look at what Republican Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty said about the Republican Party:


"We cannot be a majority governing party when we essentially cannot compete in the Northeast, we are losing our ability to compete in Great Lakes States, we cannot compete on the West Coast, we are increasingly in danger of competing in the Mid-Atlantic States, and the Democrats are now winning some of the Western States," he said. "That is not a formula for being a majority governing party in this nation."
"And similarly we cannot compete, and prevail, as a majority governing party if we have a significant deficit, as we do, with women, where we have a large deficit with Hispanics, where we have a large deficit with African-American voters, where we have a large deficit with people of modest incomes and modest financial circumstances," he said. "Those are not factors that make up a formula for success going forward."


Stay with demagogues like Limbaugh, and the GOP will remain a minority regional party for a long, long time.

You and your fellow travelers are NOT mainstream. You're the fringe of the GOP, the radical fringe.

What else can explain your empowering a former illegal prescription user, racist, sexist, and clown as THE major voice of the Republican Party.

If that's who you want to represent you, good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

The name of her blog sums up their problem very nicely. They think they are "always right" and therefore, never have to look at their own failures, own up to anything and therefore, change, adapt and progress with the rest of society. It's ok with me, I'd just as soon leave them behind. Check out her blog; we are all idiots to her.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anonymous,

Yes. Their inability to recognize that they are not mainstream is what will keep them deluded that they are REAL conservatives.

Thinking conservatives like the people who post on this blog are appalled that Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, and Savage are the people that "the base" admires.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Actually, a better link to the conservative blog that addresses the Steele apology to Limbaugh is here.

BB-Idaho said...

Gasbag, Jabba the Huttbaugh, Prince of Slime, Oversized Potty
Mouth, Purveyor of Puerility etc.
Sure, fine. But 'ugulated feet'?
Ow, ow..ow. Low..Coulter low!

Gordon said...

Wow...I'm so glad we neanderthals have such a wonderful bunch of thoughtful, caring people like yourselves to tell us how to make our message better. You can tell by the record of the last four decades that we have no idea how to win an election.

It just warms my cold, pitted heart to know that you care so much!

Shaw Kenawe said...

You're welcome, Gordon. And remember, we'll always be here for you.

TRUTH 101 said...

What we can tell by the record of the last four elections are that Republicans are good at foolong people Gordon. Looks like your PT Barnum ride is over though Buddy.

Lynne said...

Gordon, do try to take an objective look at your party's behavior lo these past 8 years and especially these past 8 weeks. How you defend it is beyond me.

dmarks said...

Truth: "Republicans are good at fooling people Gordon"

With Obama promising an ethical administration and NO lobbyists, and he is still nominating an endless succession of tax criminals and lobbyists, who got fooled?

When he promises no wastefull earmarks in a budget, and then he proposes one with 9,000 earmarks, who got fooled?

Lynne: "at your party's behavior ...especially these past 8 weeks"

Well, in the past 8 weeks I've seen the Republican Party be the only one of the two parties two insist that people actually read a massive spending bill before it is passed, and that a stimulus package should focus on economic stimulus instead of blowing money on wasteful pet projects and sneaking things in that have nothing to do with stimulus.

Gordon said...

Golly, Lynne, I'm pretty sure that I haven't defended the behavior of the Republican party over the last eight years. I'm much more critical of it than you'll ever be, I suspect.

But the last eight weeks? I detect a few hints of something I could get behind again. I'm not a party apparatchik, although I have done party work in the past, and I likely will again--because the party is the sharp edge of the movement. Sometimes the most effective way is through the party.

And for Truth 101 (careful; with a moniker like that, someone might suggest a remedial prep course!) I'll just amend your statement to read: Politicians are good at fooling people. That's how they get elected.

Anonymous said...

Take a look at who put some of those earmarks in the bill (the Omnibus bill) guys. Maybe YOU should read it.

Arthurstone said...

Thank God for the Republicans.

Wagons circled. Down to our last shells the cavalry thunders over the hill to save us from the Omnibus spending bill. Of last year.

Earmarks! Earmarks! Earmarks!

Where would we be without Republican 'leadership'? Who knows. Perhaps tied down in an endless military adventure in the Middle East. And look at the damage done when we didn't take their advice and privatize Social Security? See how much more assured retirements could have been if they'd been tied to the stock market?

Funny thing about 'earmarks'. They aren't inherently bad. Most are worthwhile projects allowing constituents to proceed with projects which benefit the community. Oh I know how much fun it can be to pick out a one page description of an appropriation with the word 'beaver' or 'cricket' or the phrase 'grape genetics' or 'astronomy in Hawaii'. Anyone can tell just how silly those projects are.

Except one can't. KISS, appealing though it can be, isn't always the best advice.

Couple of other things about 'earmarks'. They amount to less than 2% of spending in this bill. They are roughly divided proportionately across party lines.

And guess what?

We have more urgent problems to deal with. The world financial system remains in free fall in case no one has noticed.

Earmarks! Earmarks!

But give a congressional Republican a simple phrase and it's like a two year old new to the word 'no'. They can't stop repeating it.

I for one didn't vote for President Obama solely because he hoped one day to clean up congressional spending. I voted for him because he was clearly the better candidate.

And six weeks in I haven't seen anything which could begin to convince me otherwise. In fact watching Senator McCain ( and his enbablers weepy John Boehner & McConnell) grandstand these past couple of days on this spending bill assures me how correctly the US voter chose last November.

Now grow up. Get to work. Pass the bill and get on with the nation's business.

dmarks said...

Arthur: "Where would we be without Republican 'leadership'? Who knows. Perhaps tied down in an endless military adventure in the Middle East. "

It hasn't happened yet. Retaliating against the terrorists does not meet the definition of military "Adventure".

Arthur: "And look at the damage done when we didn't take their advice and privatize Social Security?"

Actualy, Bush only recommended privatizing a small percentage of Social Security investments. It was a great idea then. It is a great idea now. It was a great idea when Al Gore proposed it. Don't demagogue this one into meaninglessness.

"Now grow up. Get to work. Pass the bill and get on with the nation's business."

It only makes sense to pass the bill once all the waste that McCain has identified is removed. Interesting that is now considered "Grandstanding" and bad taste to pay attention to details in the laws that Congress passes.

dmarks said...

Always Right: " Remember the Republican base. The people who got President Bush elected for the second term. "

Actually, the people got got President Bush elected for the second term included the Republican base AND the middle. He got a majority of the voters.

Arthurstone said...

dmarks solemnly intoned:

"Interesting that is now considered "Grandstanding" and bad taste to pay attention to details in the laws that Congress passes."

Actually what's interesting is that what winds up these Republicans are the items like the examples I gave. Stuff they can poke fun at in simplistic sound bites.

Some things never change.

When in doubt Al Gore. Or Bill Clinton. Investment in the stock market was discussed and declined.

I wish Republicans would learn how to change their minds on occasion. You know how when new data emerges or the old ways of doing things no longer work? Perhaps then we wouldn't be in the sixth year (longer than WWII) of our excellent Middle East adventure.

Oh Well.

dmarks said...

Arthur: "Stuff they can poke fun at in simplistic sound bites."

Yet, it is stuff that is actually in the bills. For shame that anyone should read the laws being passed by Congress, let alone read them out loud! We are truly in an era of "Trust the government, we know best". And "Question authority? How DARE you!"

"I wish Republicans would learn how to change their minds on occasion"

Not in this case, when it would mean deciding to do the wrong thing. I wish that Obama represented the change and ethical improvement he promised, instead of nominating an endless succession of tax cheats to the cabinet and hiring lobbyists. And that he would find a new way of dealing with problems instead of wasteful spending bills that spend for spending's sake.

"Perhaps then we wouldn't be in the sixth year (longer than WWII) of our excellent Middle East adventure."

We haven't started anything that meets the definition of "adventure". The necessary retaliation against the terrorists certainly does not. But we might. Who knows, the new war that Biden predicts for Obama might meet the definition.

Arthurstone said...

dmarks typed:

Yet, it is stuff that is actually in the bills.

Yes. In Republicanville that translates into'Let's get that 2% of spending which get's everyones attention on the evening news.' And no thanks yet again for your very singular take on a very select sampling of Obama's appointments. Not very many share your view. We have bigger fish to fry.

He added:

" The necessary retaliation against the terrorists certainly does not."

New Flash.

'The terrorists' weren't in Iraq. If we really were serious about 'retaliation against the terrorists' we'd have invaded Pakistan.

But I give Obama credit for an orderly draw down in Iraq. We've mad a bad situation worse and have an obligation to the citizens there to help out with the mess we made.

I disagree with adding anymore troops to our force in Afghanistan. Like the Canadian PM I think that is pointless.

dmarks said...

Arthur: "And no thanks yet again for your very singular take on a very select sampling of Obama's appointments"

"into'Let's get that 2% of spending which get's everyones attention on the evening news."

You are probably greatly underestimating that 2% of the budget is waste. And even if it is this small, why is it OK to blow 2% of the budget?

That's a pretty high % of Obama cabinet appointment who are tax cheats. And he did promise to hire NO lobbyists... before he hired a bunch.

Arthur: "'The terrorists' weren't in Iraq. If we really were serious about 'retaliation against the terrorists' we'd have invaded Pakistan."

Actual news flash: they were. Do you want a list of the several terrorist organizations hosted and funded by Saddam Hussein? No amount of lying will wish them out of existence. Saddam was a major terrorist kingpin. The key word being WAS. Because we were serious about the terrorists after 9/11, we retaliated against Saddam's regime. The world is much better for it.

"Iraq. We've made a bad situation worse and have an obligation to the citizens there to help out with the mess we made."

We made a bad situation better, and we owe it to the citizens there to finish cleaning up the mess Saddam's regime made and to help mop up the few remaining terrorists.

"But I give Obama credit for an orderly draw down in Iraq"

I give him credit for following Bush's lead on the withdrawal plan.

Arthurstone said...

dmarks typed:


'You are probably greatly underestimating that 2% of the budget is waste. And even if it is this small, why is it OK to blow 2% of the budget?'

I said no such thing regarding waste. I did say that earmarks aren't inherently wasteful. 2% of the budget is 'earmarks' and that's the stuff the Republicans get all gooey over on the nitely news.

He added:

'Actual news flash: they were. Do you want a list of the several terrorist organizations hosted and funded by Saddam Hussein?'

The only one that really matters is Al Qaeda. And there were 'no operational links' between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. That some of these varmints may have visited a Baghdad Starbucks with Iraqi intelligence didn't necessitate our invasion.

And actually he isn't 'following Bush's lead' but if it comforts you to believe as such please do. George didn't much care what the Iraqis ever wanted. Obama does and his plans adhere to their wishes.

dmarks said...

"2% of the budget is 'earmarks' and that's the stuff the Republicans get all gooey over on the nitely news."

So, why not just cut these and be done with the controversy? But truth be told I would want to see some of the money go to restore funding to the education program for poor children in Washington, D.C. that Obama ordered cut. I'd be more favorably included to Obama's budgets if they helped the poor more. Instead, we have free health care for rich adults being sold as a program for needy children, and him cutting a program to help educate children because of political pressure from education opponents.

"The only one that really matters is Al Qaeda"

That'll be news to the Clinton and Obama administrations also that there is only one terrorist organization. I guess they have to wipe the rest off of the State Department list of terrorist organizations.

The positive ties between Al Queda and Saddam's regime were small, but definite. That alone did not necessitate taking strong action to deal with the terrorist problem. The cease-fire violations, aggression, and sponsoring and support of numerous terrorist groups did. The lesson of 9/11 was that a "status quo" of aggressive terrorism was too risky to let slide.

Last time I knew, there were 42 on the State Department list of terrorists groups. I really doubt that Obama is going to shrink the list. Just about anyone involved, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, would not dignify the call to "reduce the list of terrorist organizations from 42 to 1" with a response.

"And actually he isn't 'following Bush's lead' but if it comforts you to believe as such please do."

It is probably more like that he is in a position to know the facts now, and is not changing this as much.