AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

They Just Don’t Get It (II)

[Part I is HERE]

Some outstanding comments left at Ace’s post regarding the GOP not standing up for conservative principles. I actually thought about the Israel-Palestine analogy earlier and forgot to write about it. Spot-on.


I see a lot of this battle for our ideology in terms of what’s happening in Israel.

How often do we hear people suggest that Israel offer land for peace? And how effective is it?

Likewise, we cannot cede any ground in this battle at all. How can we on these issues? Nationalization? Centralized government? National security? Oppressive taxes? Protection of the innocent? Rising energy costs? Freedom of religious expression? Freedom of speech? The right to bear arms?

These are core values and they are not negotiable.

If the general population of this country seems to be leaning toward socialism, it is not a sign for us to move our goal posts.

It’s a sign that we have to do a better job of communicating these essential principles and values to people and to nominate candidates who can do the same.

We don’t follow Rush or any other person…we follow ideals…and Rush is the most prominent man on the front lines. It’s extremely insulting to refer to conservatives as cultists because they’re defending a conservative who’s being pounded on both sides. But then I’m sick to freakin’ death over the labeling anyway.

People need to stop wasting time trying to come up with cutsie shorthand labels to isolate those who disagree with them and need to start looking at the bigger picture of what’s at stake and focus on developing a plan of action to fight the agenda of the left.

Posted by: Mary Beth at March 10, 2009 05:11 AM


I am sure that there are plenty of Americans who did not vote in the last election or have never voted yet are very unhappy having to live under the failure just elected; these are the Americans Newt and Steele have forgotten while Rush Limbaugh reaches out to them.

These are the Americans who will change the next election, the ones never involved politically yet are forced into paying attention because now their personal wallets are being heavily affected in a negative way.

Those 10 million new Rush listeners are most likely Americans who were never politically involved; these are the potential new voter who see Dem politicians looting and pillaging their wallet yet hearing Rush Limbaugh say we must stop the looting and pilliaging.

Newt and Steele do not the reach those new voter, they are stuck on stupid tyring to get moderates who already voted for the failure; if those moderate voters need more proof that what they empowered in the last election is failure what is the point of reaching out to them.

If Steele, Newt or this Patterico character are still stuck on stupid stuff then they they should continuing empowering Democrats.

Personally, I am following the guy who is saying that it is wrong for the government to loot and pillage my wallet.

That aside, the fiscal conservative-libertarian, moderate social liberal must be livid now that they are PAYING for abortion around the world while PAYING for embroynic stem cell reaearch which in the end, turns out is less effective than adult stem cells.

It is funny; socially-liberal, fiscal-conservatives want less government however at the end of the day they end up empowering bigger Big Goverment; these social liberal, fiscal conservatives are no longer fiscally conservative rather they’re insane and stuck-on-stupid.

All you fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters my question is…what are you going to do about the Big Government you empowered?

Blaming Rush is not the answer.

Posted by: syn at March 10, 2009 06:31 AM


The reason I as a conservatives am angry is not because Rush is being attacked, it is because Rush is being attacked for articulating a conservative message: we hope socialism fails. The GOP, who heretofore represented conservatism on a de facto basis, refuses to defend this straightforward statement on the merits, instead engaging in cowardly triangulation and hedged statements.

On two occasions since CPAC (First, the speaker who questioned Obama’s citizenship; and second w. the Rush flap), ace has sought to browbeat conservatives from using such “unhelpful” language. The reasoning applied has been that Republicans (vice conservatives) need to broaden their appeal; to broaden their appeal, they need to get more people, especially ignorant people, to like them; to get people to like them, they have to avoid saying “mean” things, or even things that can be misinterpreted by the media as mean. For this reasoning to hold, one must, among other things, accept the meme established by the media and argue on the basis of that meme (rather than on the basis of true facts). The argumentation employed by ace to prove this point has been to raise strawman after strawman (e.g. “You guys are saying all criticism of Rush is off limits” or “Since when did hoping for failure become a core conservative value”), and then argue against that which was never raised as an argument. Devoid of any of his posts have been an appeal to conservative principle, and this is because his position cannot be sustained on that basis.

The Gingrich/Steele wing of the party seeks to depict themselves as “rational” intermediary between the far right wingnuts and white shoe republicans to the media and the fictitious focus group demographic their consultants tell them the GOP needs to impress. To do this, they attempt to tell conservatives not to argue about this, that this is small potatoes, and we need to keep our powder dry. But, the GOP does not dictate to the conservative wing of the party which controversies are important and which are not. This internecine argument has illuminated the longstanding fault lines between those in the GOP who wish to be Democrat Lite and those who want a return to CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE. It would be useful to remember who cannot win without whom.

Throughout, the pro-Rushbos have been told that Rush is hurting the party by responding to these “distancing” remarks by GOP party spokespeople. We are told that we are walking right into Rahm Emmanuel’s trap by rising to the bait. No consideration is given to the blatantly obvious that, in fact, it is those who attack Rush who are giving aid and comfort to our ideological enemies, at this critical juncture when the Dems seek to silence conservative talk radio. But, the important thing in the GOP’s consideration is to justify w. a response the media’s characterization of the meta-message of Rush’s statement (that Republicans are mean); rather than defend the substance of the message on principle. It is that much more egregious because, as has been emphasized many times, defending Rush’s statement on the merits would be a very simple thing to do.

GOP delenda est.

Posted by: mjhlaw at March 10, 2009 08:23 AM


Looking at this from Ace’s purely pragmatic viewpoint, the message that the mushy middle takes home from Steele and Gingrich’s comments will NOT be, “Hey, Limbaugh’s not the leader of the GOP. Rational guys like Steele and Gingrich are.” Even the mushy middle knows this talk of “party leader” is largely irrelevant boilerplate. No, the take-home from Gingrich and Steele’s comments will be, “That substantial proportion of the GOP whose views are in accord with Limbaugh’s actually are an incendiary, ugly, irrational horde. Even Steele and Gingrich said so. No matter how badly Obama fucks up, I can’t get down with a party that includes a substantial cohort like that.”

That’s why, from the purely pragmatic viewpoint, Steele and Gingrich’s comments were flat-out stupid, and completely unnecessary overkill in “distancing”.

Posted by: ashowalt at March 10, 2009 09:42 AM


So, let me get this straight. The media takes a Rush comment out of context and makes a big story of it. Republicans and other pundit types (Gingrich) feel compelled to distance themselves from Rush’s ‘divisive’ and ‘irrational’ comments. How about option (b): Pull you balls out of your purse and put Rush’s comments back into context when you are asked about them and explain that you agree that Obama’s policies are not going to help ecnomic recovery etc. If Rush had actually said something that a conservative would disagree with then, sure, distancing yourself is the proper way to go but Gingrich isn’t distancing himself from what Rush said – he’s distancing himself from the phantom Rush created by the media. The media can be counted on to twist anything someone says to be unpopular and if our instinct is to give into this then we might as well never say anything.

Posted by: Bald Ninja at March 10, 2009 09:54 AM


And that’s my real gripe with much of the conservative assault on Limbaugh. If the liberal attack was craven and hackneyed, the conservative attack is pointless. Again, I don’t mean the substantive disagreements, even though you can have those arguments without dragooning Rush into them. But, with all due respect to David Frum, nobody who likes Rush Limbaugh is going to dislike him because David says they should, particularly when David’s arguments descend into comments about the man’s cigars and waistline. In fairness, no one who dislikes Limbaugh will start liking him on his defenders’ say-so either. But the defenders weren’t trying to make people like Limbaugh, they were simply trying to defend him against nakedly strategic or vindictive attacks from friend and foe alike.

In short, my advice to everyone (assuming anyone cares one iota): Move on. This is played out. It’s tired. If you squint real hard and look over your shoulder, you can see the shark swirling in the water behind you. Get back to arguing about family tax credits or something. We know where everyone stands already.

Posted by: KingShamus at March 10, 2009 09:55 AM


My final word: To agree with the media’s conflation of Rush’s desire to see Obama fail with a hope that America fails is to implicitly recognize that the socialist policies Obama is advocating will both work as intended, and consistent with America’s interests. Neither of these is true. By conflating the arguments, you allow the media to establish the terms of the argument which, BY DEFINITION, you cannot win. They have structured it such that any argument against Obama’s socialist policies is an argument against America.

Posted by: mjhlaw at March 10, 2009 11:39 AM


March 10, 2009 , 1:43PM - Posted by | Barack Obama, Censorship, Communism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Marxism, Media Bias, Rush Limbaugh

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: