AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Barack Obama – The Pied Piper of the Mind-Numbed Robots

Heh. Brillaint. Absolutely spot-on brilliant.

Why Rush Can’t Endorse McCain


RUSH: Morgan in Apple Valley, California, I’m glad you waited. Nice to have you on the program.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. I do not think that Obama’s rhetoric is empty. I am of the opinion that he is skillfully using soaring rhetoric to make desire a fact; desire becomes policy position. I don’t hear people say, “I agree with his policies and positions.” I hear, “I believe in Obama.”

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: And rather than write his rhetoric off as empty, I would like to see someone do a thesis-level analysis of Obama’s rhetoric from a historical perspective. Obama’s rhetoric frightens me. I see it as an abusive exploitation of the human religious sentiment in the service of progressivism, political religion, and you have stated before that progressivism, liberalism is a religion, and I believe that Obama is just their newest priest.

RUSH: I agree with you a hundred percent on that, it’s very well said. When I say he’s saying nothing, I don’t mean to be insulting here. You made the point a different way. People are not saying, “I agree with Obama,” because they don’t know what he’s saying. If you ask, “Obama, what’s he for?” They’ll say it doesn’t matter, and they won’t be able to tell you what he’s for. They’ll be able to give you platitudes, “Well, he’s for America. Well, he’s for fairness. Well, he’s for justice.”

CALLER: His soaring rhetoric will bring them to him and once he has them, he will be able to lead them where he wishes them to go. This has a historical precedent.

RUSH: What are we going to be able to do about it?

CALLER: Expose it! Analyze it! Lay it side by side with historical precedents.

RUSH: Okay, but do you think the Democrats are going to listen to me on this?

CALLER: No. No Democrat ever listens to you.

RUSH: No, they listen, but they’re not —

CALLER: Rush, Democrats won’t! Sane people will!

RUSH: Well, but the point is, he’s going to get Democrat votes. The Democrats do listen, but they’re inclined to do the exact opposite of what I say. If I really wanted to torpedo McCain, I would endorse him because that would send the independents and liberals that are going to vote for him running away faster than anything. What people don’t realize is, I’m doing McCain the biggest favor that could be done for him by staying out of this. If I endorsed him thoroughly, with passion, that would end the independents and moderates, because they so despise me and they so hate me. For example, where did I see this? Oh. Some guy, a columnist in the New York Post, talked to — do you know what Tina Fey is?

CALLER: Not really.

RUSH: Well, Tina Fey used to be one of the writers at Saturday Night Live and she did the Weekend Update news. She now is the creator/producer/writer of the NBC comedy show 30 Rock. This guy in the New York Post yesterday was quoting her saying, “Yeah, I’m telling everybody I’m voting Obama, but I’m really voting McCain.” Now, she’s telling people she’s voting Obama because with the liberals that’s going to make her sound good, look good, voting for the black guy, but she says she’s secretly going to vote for McCain. Now, if I really wanted to torpedo McCain, I would endorse him because if I do, and if I become the biggest champion and supporter of John McCain there is in this country, the Tina Feys of the world are going to punt. They’re going to think, “Wait a minute, what’s happened here? What did McCain do to get Limbaugh’s endorsement?” That’s the way Democrats listen to me is my point.
CALLER: Logical insane people listen to you, and there are enough logical insane Democrats that will hopefully wake up and understand that Obama’s rhetoric has a historical precedent —

RUSH: They don’t care about anything but winning. Like I said earlier, the fact that he says nothing while saying it well, that’s half of why they like him. They’re so sick and tired of a president they don’t think can put two sentences together in a way that makes sense. I can’t tell you the number of liberal Democrats I’ve run into, and their sole reason for hating Bush is they don’t think he can talk. And they think he’s stupid, which of course he isn’t. But they think he is because of the way he speaks publicly. So here you’ve got Obama, regardless what he’s saying, he speaks much better in public than Hillary does. He speaks much better in public than even old Bill did.

CALLER: We know who Hillary is. We know where she’s been. We know what we stand for. Obama is impossible to pin down. And that’s scary.

RUSH: Well, I’m not intimidated by that. When the time comes, all you’re going to need to know about Obama is, he’s a liberal. And then you just need to define what liberals are going to do to the country, and I’ll incorporate your well-reasoned thoughts. In fact, you know what you’re really saying is, if there are any mind-numbed robots out there, they are Obama supporters.


RUSH: They don’t care what he’s saying. They don’t care whether it makes sense or not.

CALLER: He’s like the pied piper —

RUSH: Exactly. Exactly what I’m accused of being is what Obama is.

CALLER: But his sweet tune has got to be analyzed.

RUSH: Do you think, Morgan, he’s seriously going to win the Democrat nomination?

CALLER: I don’t know from here. I really don’t know. But he might.

RUSH: He may win it, but he’s not going to be the nominee.

CALLER: Interesting.

RUSH: Yeah. It’s the Clintons we’re talking about here, Morgan, the Clintons.

CALLER: May I make a personal note? You inspire me —

RUSH: Yes.

CALLER: — because of your ability to have overcome what you have been through and get on with your life, and I listen to you mostly for that reason.

RUSH: Well, thank you very much. I sincerely appreciate that.

CALLER: You inspire me.

RUSH: Thank you very much, Morgan. I appreciate it. By the way, Morgan, one of my all-time, top-ten female names.


RUSH: All right, we have a lot of interesting and funny audio sound bites, and we’ll get to those in the next hour. I think it’s funny McCain is saying “calm down” to his people, Obama is saying, “get fired up.” Isn’t that kind of all we need to know here? We’re told to calm down. Obama’s telling his people, “Get fired up out there!”


February 11, 2008 , 8:39PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, John McCain, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Barack Obama – The Pied Piper of the Mind-Numbed Robots

Nancy Pelosi Tells Terrorists Not to Give Up, Democrats are Still Trying to Surrender

Yes, of course, those were not her exact words, but that is the message that she, and the rest of the Democrat Party, sends.

Nevermind that the Democrat Congress has not gotten one thing accomplished in over a year in power. (Oh wait, I forgot about raising the minimum wage. Now there’s an accomplishment!) Nevermind that the Iraqi government has been in existence for only a few years, the Democrats expect them to behave like the 200+ year old United States government.

If we are to believe the Democrats, a fledgling Democracy has 3+ years to come together otherwise, it is a “FAILURE!” Nevermind that the United States of America did not come together in that short of a time period, even when having the Founding Fathers as the leaders.

Nah, none of that matters to the Democrats. WE MUST SURRENDER! FAILURE! FAILURE! FAILURE! “NO SE PUEDE!”

Oh, but, don’t forget: they support the troops…

[NOTE: I posted about the letters, to which Rush refers in his monologue, HERE.]

Al-Qaeda in Iraq in Total Collapse; Pelosi Declares Surge a Failure


RUSH: I want to get this news in during our first hour today, because this is the hour broadcast around the world on the Armed Forces Radio network. It’s from the Times of London. “Al-Qaeda Leaders Admit: ‘We are in Crisis. There is Panic and Fear’ — Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an ‘extraordinary crisis.’ Last year’s mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from Al-Qaeda to the US military ‘created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight’. The terrorist group’s security structure suffered ‘total collapse.’ These are the words not of Al-Qaeda’s enemies but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group’s stronghold. They were set down last summer in a 39-page letter seized during a US raid on an Al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November. The US military released extracts from that letter yesterday along with a second seized [letter] in another November raid that is almost as startling. … US intelligence officials cautioned, however, that the documents were snapshots of two small areas and that Al-Qaeda was far from a spent force.”

Now, the story does mention here on page two, “The Anbar letter conceded that the ‘crusaders’ — Americans — had gained the upper hand by persuading ordinary Sunnis that Al-Qaeda was responsible for their suffering and by exploiting their poverty to entice them into the security forces.” So the point of the story is: Hey, the Iraqis didn’t get to this conclusion all by themselves. They had to be talked into it by the Americans, and that isn’t fair in a time of war. The Americans talked the Sunnis out of being with Al-Qaeda in Iraq! So whenever there’s good news, it has to be sprinkled and peppered with pessimism. At the same time, Nancy Pelosi has called Iraq a failure. She said twice yesterday — we’ve got the audio on this, “‘Iraq is a failure,’ adding that President Bush’s troop surge has not produced the desired effect. ‘The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq. They’ve not done that.” She then hastened to add, by the way, “The troops have succeeded. God bless them.” Let’s go to the audio sound bites, just near the end of the stack here. It’s number 20. Here it is. This is from Late Edition, Wolf Blitzed yesterday, who said to Pelosi, “You’re not worried all the gains that have been achieved over the past year in Iraq might be lost?”

PELOSI: There haven’t been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure! The troops have succeeded. God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude, the sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage, and to their families as well. This is a — a disaster, and we cannot perpetuate it. We have to make decisions. And this is — the loss of life of nearly 4,000 of our troops, an average of 800 a year, tens of thousands injured; some of them permanently, blind, amputations.

RUSH: Thank goodness. I’m so happy the Democrats are back on page on this. Here we are in the middle of Iraq. I want to send out a hearty congratulations with sincere love and devotion and awe and respect to all of you wearing the military uniform of this country, in whatever branch in which you serve. Those of you in Iraq, those of you in Afghanistan, those of you who have been, those of you who are back, those of you who are back and going back; God bless you. You are succeeding. You are achieving victory — and let it be heard, the Democrat Party leadership today has no desire for your victory to be known. They have no desire for your victory to be proposed and accepted by the American people. You keep on, because Americans understand that you are succeeding and we understand this because Iraq is not even on the table as an election issue. Nobody is even talking about it on the Democrat side here. Now, one thing about this. Bill Kristol wrote a piece, his most recent piece in the Weekly Standard, and he really took after Rick Santorum in this piece, and I have to bring this up.

Rick Santorum was excoriated by Bill Kristol as a Reagan conservative, and Kristol is making the point that we need a new conservatism now that has a new definition that includes a big and activist government doing the kind of things that the new conservatives want it to do. He says, I’m paraphrasing here, “We can’t rely on the old conservatism. I mean, look at Santorum! Santorum lost by 17 points. Don’t tell me that that’s the way conservatism needs to go.” One thing about this that needs to be pointed out: One of the reasons — and I say, one of the primary reasons that most supporters of McCain; I don’t care if they’re independents, liberals, Democrats, or Republicans — one of the reasons that people support McCain is because of his leadership on foreign policy and his support of the surge, correct? People say, “He’ll keep us safe. He’s a war veteran. He’s a POW. He’s got honor. He’s got integrity.” Well, let me tell you something. Rick Santorum may have lost by 17 points in Philadelphia. But let me remind you what his number-one campaign issue was. His number-one campaign issue, in a liberal state, was to try to tell voters of that state — the residents of Pennsylvania — that the big threat we faced was the threat of Islamic Jihad, radical Islamofascism; and he lost by 17 points on it, in a liberal state, that didn’t want to hear it.

To excoriate Santorum for losing by 17 points when he was using the same issue McCain has used to get the nomination, is disingenuous. It is unfortunate, and it’s unfair. It was not just Senator McCain, by the way, if I can insert myself here who supported the president during the surge. Those of us on talk radio who are being excoriated by members of our own party led the way in supporting the president throughout the Iraq war. Throughout four years of Democrats attempting to destroy it, to secure defeat, to own defeat, to prevent the president from succeeding, trying to bog the president down when it comes to his prosecution of the war, who was there every day defending it, supporting the president, and encouraging him to go on, despite what the media was saying, despite what Democrats were saying, despite Harry Reid, despite Pelosi? It was those of us on talk radio. Yet somehow Senator McCain is getting singular and sole credit for having supported the surge and seeing to it that it was successful. Don’t forget Rick Santorum. He went down in defeat trying to alert the people of his state what was most important.

In other words, “be careful what you wish for”. Rick Santorum was voted out of office based on his support for the war effort. Joe Lieberman was also kicked out of the Democrat Party, based on his support for the war effort. John McCain will not be winning any “blue” states in the general election based on his support for the war effort.

February 11, 2008 , 8:37PM Posted by | al Qaeda, Democrats, Iraq, Leftist Groups, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, The Long War, War Effort in Iraq | Comments Off on Nancy Pelosi Tells Terrorists Not to Give Up, Democrats are Still Trying to Surrender

We are Electing a Government, Not Just a President

Andrew McCarthy nails it about McCainservatives: McCain Estrangement Syndrome

Are John McCain’s supporters trying to drive conservatives away from their candidate?

Senator McCain is the inevitable Republican presidential nominee. He is headed, though, for a defeat of McGovernite dimensions if he can’t sway conservatives to get behind his candidacy. For their part, conservatives don’t want McCain, but even less do they want to spend the next four-to-eight years saying “President Obama,” let alone reliving history with another President Clinton.

In short, there are the makings here for a modus vivendi, however grudging. Yet, McCain’s admirers appear to think belittling the senator’s good-faith opponents is the way to go. Theirs is a case of the pot calling the kettle “deranged” — and it will prove duly futile.

Put yourselves in my shoes for a moment. I have not supported Sen. McCain. I admire his perseverance and love of country. Still, I don’t think he is a committed conservative, and his penchant for demonizing all opposition is, to me, extremely off-putting. Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, there’s nothing delusional about that.

In fact, as between the two of us, it’s McCain’s supporters who are deluding themselves. I take them at their word, for example, that a hallmark of the senator’s politics is his tenacity on matters of principle. Consequently, I am skeptical of his assurances that he would appoint conservative judges who will apply rather than create law. Why? Because he has a recent, determined history of beseeching federal courts to disregard the First Amendment in furtherance of a dubious campaign-finance scheme in which he believes passionately. Conservative judges would (and have) rejected this scheme, just as they would (and have) rejected another signature McCain position: the extension of Geneva Convention protections for jihadists.

Now, the appointment of conservative judges is a crucial issue — one McCain posits as central to why we should prefer him to Obama and Clinton. Thus supporters breezily wave off such concerns, maintaining that McCain both promises there will be no issue-based litmus tests for judicial nominees and has conservatives of impeccable legal credentials advising him.

But for me to conclude McCain would surely appoint conservative judges, I also have to believe campaign-finance and the Geneva Convention weren’t all that big a deal to him after all — a possibility that runs counter to everything McCain’s fans tell us about his fidelity to principle. He’s fought tirelessly for years, in the teeth of blistering criticism, to establish campaign-finance regulations, and I’m now supposed to believe he’ll just shrug his shoulders and meekly name judges who’ll torpedo the whole enterprise — all in the name of upholding a judicial philosophy I’m not even sure he grasps? How exactly is it deranged to have my doubts?

And, of course, that’s not all. McCain points out that he supported the Supreme Court nominations of Justices Roberts and Alito; but he blocked the appointment of Pentagon general counsel Jim Haynes to the Fourth Circuit, and his “Gang of 14” deal was the death knell for several other Bush judicial nominations. He says he’s learned his lesson on immigration “reform,” but he won’t rule out signing the disastrous McCain/Kennedy bill if it were to cross his desk in the Oval Office. He now says he opposes the Law of the Sea Treaty and its assault on American sovereignty, but he used to be an ardent supporter. He told National Review he didn’t foresee pushing for further campaign-finance legislation, but that was when he was unsuccessfully urging the federal courts to impose further restrictions on speech — and, as president, he would have the power to appoint aggressive Federal Election Commission regulators. He points to his long pro-life record, but his campaign-finance crusade included a years-long effort to suppress the pro-life message, and he supported government funding of stem-cell research that called for destroying human embryos. He claims to be for small government but he contemplates government regulation of everything from light bulbs to professional sports, even as his immigration proposals would crush state health-care and education budgets. While some of McCain’s supporters claim he has consistently opposed tax increases, his Kyoto-style proposal on global warming would actually result in the most enormous tax-increase in American history (while doing little, if anything, about climate change); and, relatedly, though McCain now says he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he was one of their most vigorous opponents.

To be clear, I have never argued that no true conservative could support McCain — a commonly repeated strawman in the “derangement” indictment. The GOP field featured many accomplished candidates, but it was not a grand set of choices for the Right. The candidate most wedded to our orthodoxy, Sen. Fred Thompson, was late to the race and never really got out of the starting block. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (whom I originally supported) was conservative in many ways but, like McCain, listed serial apostasies in his ledger. The conservatism of Gov. Mitt Romney (to whom I later gravitated) was, in several particulars, of recent vintage, spawning concerns about his authenticity. Gov. Mike Huckabee, a peerless advocate for life and other core social-conservative causes, sounds more like a Democrat on the economy, governed like one when it came to taxes and pardons, and often seems at sea on national-security issues.

Conservatives had to pick someone. For all his flaws, no candidate could match Sen. McCain’s singular leadership in preventing an American defeat in Iraq. None came close to his heroism in service to the United States. And, in two decades in the Senate, he has sided with conservatives on about four out of every five votes — a rate that cannot camouflage the gravity of his departures but ought not be dismissed out of hand either. I found at least three of the other candidates more appealing than the self-professed “maverick.” That, however, does not mean it was irrational for other conservatives to come to a different conclusion — and though some now prescribe mere opposition to McCain as a form of febrile lunacy, I never suggested otherwise.

So, when McCain became inevitable on “Super Tuesday,” I resigned myself to reality in short order. That, I’ve always thought, is democracy in America: You do your best to persuade, you hope to win, but you don’t take your ball and go home if you lose.

There remains a rational case to continue rejecting McCain. We are, after all, electing a government, not just a president. I strongly suspect the conservative movement and Republicans in Congress would perform better if set against a Democrat president than in an uneasy alliance with McCain.  Thus it’s not a simple matter of determining whether McCain is superior to Obama or Clinton;  the question is whether he is so much better that we should tolerate the heavy cost of a movement and a party less disposed to fight a President McCain on the several flawed policy preferences he shares with Democrats.

That’s far from a no-brainer. But for me, the question must be resolved in McCain’s favor because of the war. Our troops in harm’s way deserve the best commander-in-chief we have it in our power to give them; the American people deserve the most vigilant protection against a rabid enemy we have it in our power to give them. For these purposes, McCain is measurably superior to Obama and Clinton. That doesn’t mean my reservations are any less real; they are just comparatively (and barely) less important.

By Wednesday, then, I was resigned to the senator’s being not just the nominee but our nominee. On Thursday, when Gov. Mitt Romney graciously stepped aside, I was glad. I don’t see myself ever being a McCain enthusiast, but by Thursday afternoon, I’d even gotten to the point of offering his campaign what I hoped was constructive advice on taking a leadership role in the current debate over intelligence reform.

But I’m no longer so sure. McCain’s supporters continue to mock thoughtful, good-faith critics as “deranged.” The principal objects of scorn are such conservative talk-radio icons as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity. A number of those folks are friends of mine, and, indeed, I appeared on a couple of their programs in the run-up to Super Tuesday. The discussion wasn’t “deranged.” I’m not deranged, and neither are they.

The McCain forces assert that ordinary Republican voters are roundly rejecting us naysayers. Really? That claim is even more demonstrably false today than it was a week ago.

Before last Tuesday, when he became inevitable, about two out of every three Republicans were voting against McCain. This past Saturday, despite having outlasted all meaningful opposition, McCain was humiliated when three out of every four Republicans cast ballots against him in the states of Washington (which he somehow “won”) and Kansas (where he was drubbed). To add insult to insult, McCain was also defeated in Louisiana by the likable but hopeless Huckabee, whose campaign at this point is an eccentricity. For Huck, that is; for the rest of us, it is a window on smoldering dissent — and a harbinger of catastrophe to come when one factors in the Republicans who are staying home while Democrats stampede to the polls in eye-popping numbers.

McCain’s only chance, a slim one, is to galvanize the very people his acolytes seem bent on antagonizing. That means allaying deep-seated conservative doubt. A powerful senator not exactly famous for listening to his detractors will need some convincing on that score — some understanding that, as Saturday’s primaries fairly screamed, he’s got a lot more work to do.

McCain’s fans do their candidate no favors by telling him the only people who can save his candidacy are unhinged.

And they do themselves no favors. There’s a battle on the horizon for the future of conservatism. On one side are those who revere unchanging principles, especially a healthy suspicion of government. On the other are those who would refine old principles under the guise of adapting them to new situations — those apt to see government more as a force for good than a necessary evil.

Sen. McCain runs in the latter circles. There, principally, is where he finds his conservative support. If he allows his campaign to become a referendum, pitting the tried-and-true against self-consciously evolved strains of “compassionate” and “national greatness” conservatism, November will look an awful lot like Saturday night.

February 11, 2008 , 8:33PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, John McCain | Comments Off on We are Electing a Government, Not Just a President