|Quoting D L X (Reply 25):|
I haven't heard a single conservative respond to it
|Quoting DXing (Reply 20):|
BTW, if Rush is to be believed his qume numbers in the rolling arbitron survey for Dec, Jan, and Feb. show a huge spike in listenership. He must be releshing the ongoing debate about him as it's certainly allowing his sales people to charge more for advertising on his program.
From the article:
"On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility,"
Some one remind how many campaign promises have gone up in smoke already. Responsible? In what way? Saying no to earmarks? Or just saying the bill is imperfect but hey that's life? If the left is going to bash Rush over principles, which they have every right to do, where is the even handedness? Not in this article.
How about how the two are described?
"He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him."
"And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence"
No bias there right? Although the President said he was going to give up smoking, and hasn't. Disciplined? In what way? According to press reports Wednesday nights are party nights at the White House and not just beer and shots either. I guess when you reach the White House you are entitled to some things the little people aren't? At least Rush can say he "earned" the money he spends on entertainment. History of drug dependency? I seem to recall our President admitting to some dabbling in that type of behavior as well.
"and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important."
There are plenty of important elected
republicans, ones that actually have the ability to help shape policy, but the press isn't interested in those folks. Why bother with them when they can so easily demonize conservatives of all stripes via Rush?
"Look at America's public-policy problems, look at voting trends, and it's inescapably obvious that the Republican Party needs to evolve. We need to put free-market health-care reform, not tax cuts, at the core of our economic message."
I continue to advocate that with statements like that our country is in peril. The old quote that democracies fail when the public realizes they control the treasury has never been so close to realization in our country than ever before.
"After Iraq, Katrina and Harriet Miers, Democrats surged to a five-to-three advantage on the competence and ethics questions. And that was before we put Sarah Palin on our national ticket."
Yet after all the incompetence we have seen over the past three years with the democrats in charge no advantage has been lost. You have to wonder at how the bias in reporting by the major new orginizations plays into that. Is there yet any public outrage at Speaker Pelosi's use of government jets? At Senator Reid's use of his office to help his lobbyist sons? Where is the outrage at the pork in the latest ominbus bill? Yes it only represents 1% of the total package but we were told by the democrats
that earmarks would be done away with! There are tax cheats at the helm of our Treasury as well as Chair of the House Ways and Means committee. Yet no vicious attack stories on that by the major news networks. When was the last time that NBC, ABC, CBS, or MSNBC was critical of the President or Congress? Has Stephanopoulos, Gregory, Brokaw, Matthews, Daily, Olberman, or Maddox ever
been critcal of the democratic led Congress or President Obama? Yet when Rush says he wants the Presidents policies to fail and he is repeatedly misquoted and hoisted on a petard. I wonder if this writer had been less critical in his piece if it would have received the attention that NewsWeek is giving it?
"Two months into 2009, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have already enacted into law the most ambitious liberal program since the mid-1960s. More, much more is to come. Through this burst of activism, the Republican Party has been flat on its back."
???? Republicans as one in the House voiced opposition to the stimulus bill and guess what, they were immediately pronounced "obstructionist" by the mainstream national press. That was predicted before the election by many, including me, and would have happened if the GOP members opposed something as mundane as declaring a day as National Dog Catcher Day.
"Decisions that will haunt American taxpayers for generations have been made with hardly a debate. The federal government will pay more of the cost for Medicaid, it will expand the SCHIP program for young children, it will borrow trillions of dollars to expand the national debt to levels unseen since WWII. To stem this onrush of disastrous improvisations, conservatives need every resource of mind and heart, every good argument, every creative alternative and every bit of compassionate sympathy for the distress that is pushing Americans in the wrong direction. Instead we are accepting the leadership of a man with an ego-driven agenda of his own, who looms largest when his causes fare worst."
So let me get this straight, Democrats
push thru the agenda, in some cases not allowing any dissent from the opposition, or by excutive order, and some how Rush is to blame? That about ends any credibility this writer had.
"I'm a pretty conservative guy."
You'd have never have guessed it by this article. Where is promotion of smaller less intrusive government? Spending restraint? In other words "fiscal conservatism"? All I read here is a conservative bash. This guy is
exactly what is wrong
with the Republican party. Rather than get back to the ideals that President Reagan espoused, and which are still completely valid, he is suggesting that we somehow have to out democrat the democratic party and we just spent 8 years proving that won't happen.
The only fortunate part in this whole sorry mess, if you can call anything in this mess fortunate, is that after 12 years of spending most Americans will wake up an realize that the bank account is empty. It happened in 1980, 15 years after the Great Society programs were enacted, it will happen again after what ever you want to call this sorry period in our nations spending history. The only question is how difficult will it be to unravel the "entitlements" that have been enacted. Yes, we are in great peril of doing our selves in from within by our "I want it now" and "the government owes me" mentalities, but we still have time to recover. We will however, in a very short time, reach a point in which it is no longer an option of when will we unravel, but how will we do it. It's either that or we all work for the government and Lenin smiles a big smile.