Thing is, there is so much of this kinda stuff out there that, were it marshaled properly, would severely undercut Obama’s current attempts to pretend he’s the oil and gas President.
Sadly, though, we have a GOP leadership and a Party establishment — including it’s putative presidential front runner — who would rather go forcefully after conservatives than Obama.
And that’s not hyperbole, either: in recent weeks Mitt Romney has called Rick Santorum an economic lightweight while simultaneously speaking of Obama’s recovering economy; he’s noted that the President really has no control over gas prices — despite this President’s having implemented a set of energy policies he told us as a candidate he hoped would raise gas and electricity prices, crippling the oil and coal industries to nudge us into green energy and mass transit.
We are watching — in slow motion and with with decidedly more pushback from many in the conservative base — a surreal re-run of 2008: the party establishment thinks “vetting” Obama publicly is untoward, that he’s a good guy who’s just in a bit over his head, and that the way to beat him is, well, to run a youngish white guy against him, I guess.
— And I say that not to be controversial or glib, but rather because, though Romney is not a socialist or an ideological progressive, he’s certainly not a conservative, and on too many issues, from TARP, to stimulus, to cap and trade, to individual mandates, to top-down government-run health care, to the role of businesses (job creator, not profit makers) to federal minimum wage laws tied to inflation, to allowing bureaucratic imperatives to trump foundational religious concerns, he’s merely a more GOP-friendly version of the big government status quo.
Worse still, he’s a GOP-friendly version of the same big government status quo the GOP establishment is claiming to try to beat in Obama. The difference being, that our guy wants to cut him some taxes. Provided you aren’t part of the 1%.
Not really the kind of message the TEA Party was hoping we’d send in 2010, I don’t think. Nevertheless, shut up and fall in line. Traitors.
(h/t JD)
A rerun of 2008, eh? Starring the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Bush, but whose turn it just happens to be.
So is this tragedy or farce?
I’m leaning toward tragedy.
It’s a tragedy we didn’t nominate Romney in ’08. To do so now would be farcical.
I’ve taken issues in the past with you asserting Romney is the same as Obama and I appreciate (what appears) to be a refinement of your position. Your statement that “he’s merely a more GOP-friendly version of the big government status quo” seems accurate to me and is a much better way of crystalizing what Romney represents. I do think he’s a stronger candidate than McCain was, if for no other reason than he has executive experience, has successfully run multiple businesses and he hasn’t spent the last 30 years in Congress. You can talk about his record (as you should) but ultimately, its going to be difficult for Romney to reneg on his promises- for example, an immediate repeal of Obamacare- as he’s made the promise over and over again.
Unfortunately, nobody left in the race inspires particular enthusiasm in me (including Santorum, who is probably the best conservative of the remaining bunch but not necessarily the best candidate). Fortunately, I think the marxist in the White House will provide plenty of enthusiasm to oust him for most people, come November, Romney or not.
Limbaugh flashes back to last summer, riding a WaPo piece from the weekend:
This mofo (story) is going to go on awhile.
A little OT. The WaPo and everyone seems to be up in arms about that fact that Obama lied about what happened during the deficit debate. May I ask, where the hell have you been?
Maybe a little crack in the media front?
Sure, it’s an issue that will keep percolating near the top of the issues heap. I just don’t see it being anywhere near the problem it could- and should – be for Obama, mostly because I don’t see anyone on the GOP side fashioning an effective weapon from it.
Which is why I’m supporting the conservative over the latest establishment retread.
This just in: Radio talk-show host fired for dissing Obama.
How to help.
You can talk about his record (as you should) but ultimately, its going to be difficult for Romney to reneg on his promises- for example, an immediate repeal of Obamacare- as he’s made the promise over and over again.
Color me cynical, but I honestly believe that Romney’s attempts to reverse the worst excesses of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime will be half-hearted, at best. For as much as he may be qualified as an executive, Romney’s still way too comfortable seeing himself as the chief executive of a national do-good machine. It matters little to me that he will run the State efficiently, if it means the efficient erosion of my few remaining liberties.
When the establishment refuses to attack the President, even when Obama’s people hand them the ammo, it tells me that they are not serious. Ditto when they anoint a status-quo patrician to the head of the ticket, over the objections of those who energized the 2010 campaigns.
Not Fast and Furious, more like slow and stupid.
Worth remembering:
Yeah. I can hardly wait to vote Obama out of office for that.
Yeah. I can hardly wait to vote Obama out of office for that.
Sometime I feel like I’m being told to let “people who know better” strap me to the rack, because they keep telling me that the alternative is to be thrown into the iron maiden. When I remark about my preference for the comfy chair sitting forlorn and neglected in the corner, they tell me that such crazy talk is “unhelpful.”
Of course, the PWKB assert that they are far more adept with the rack than their counterparts would be with the iron maiden. That’s very reassuring.
Me? I feel like the stereotypical girl who’s up for anything on the first date and then wonders why her boyfriends always treat her like a whore.
You’d think they’d have the decency to call you in the morining!
This is frustrating. Mitt is not on the attack. Rick Santorum even is not focused on Obama. We need the attack focused on Obama. All the time. Until November.
Mittens will not repeal Obamacare. It will remain in place, waiting for another Democrat to start it up again.
Doom.
Just for fun, the full exchange, for context:
Sounds to me like he’s suggesting that the US needs an energy policy based on a market approach.
If that were the case, he wouldn’t be against increasing the supply of oil and in favor of restricting coal, would he?
And spare us your bullshit about oil production being up. We know it’s depsite the federal government.
Sounds to me like you are a mendoucheous twatwaffle.
He wants them to skyrocket. Just gradually. So he can milk a “crisis” that will exist only because of his own policies.
On the other hand, if you wanted to create a market for expensive and inefficient so-called green energy, well what would you do differently?
“Sounds to me like he’s suggesting that the US needs an energy policy based on a market approach.”
really like banning drilling in the gulf, canceling keystone, forcing auto makers make cars that get 50 mpg, imposing epa regs that close coal fired elec generation, etta al
Just for fun — and you know, for context — pretend everyone here hasn’t heard of Cass Sunstein, Nudge, or know about Sunstein’s relationship with Obama, progressive economic policy formulation, and Valerie Jarrett.
Also, let’s pretend that directing the market toward higher prices in order to create the (completely manipulated) market “incentive” against oil and gas — while simultaneously shifting money to cronies based on the false promise of “renewable energy” — is really a market-based approach, instead of a command-and-control approach directed by technocratic dictators that uses market language to try to appeal to those they’re trying to bullshit.
And let’s pretend that government regulations aimed at diminishing supply, and government redistribution of money to create the appearance of demand, are part of an organic free market system.
Then we can pretend you’ve made a point.
That should leave a mark Jeff.
Assuming by “it’s an issue” you mean the Debt Ceiling debacle and Obama’s lying about it (and not the energy issue Jeff’s post posits), suppose for a moment, mc4ever59, that Limbaugh’s conjecture, namely that the Democrats on Capitol Hill and otherwheres are the moving forces behind the stories (for Limbaugh also points out that the NYT and Bob Woodward are on the case, which is enough to set off all of Rush’s red lights). So even were the GOP not to take it up (which, I don’t believe that for a second), the dump Obama Democrats, looking at electoral disaster for themselves, may press on anyhow.
It’s a pretty damn good conjecture, too, simply on the grounds of the question, who do the WaPo, NYT and Woodward work for, after all?
Answer?: The Cause. Which isn’t congruent with the Little Red Prince.
As long as we’re pretending, lets pretend that our ration of Obama’s magic unicorn’s freshly shat skittles has increased from 15 grams to 1o!
Of course it does.
I find you increasingly cryptic, sdferr.
Soul of wit and like that, old boy.
What, you want volubility, JHo? heh
Less pomp; no circumstance. sdferr.
Sorry, but I aren’t getting you there JHo.
mittens showing what a fighter he is
link
sdferr; actually, I was referring to the thread by Jeff, but now that you mention it, you can easily apply it to the debt ceiling, the “contraception” issue that used to be about an attack on religious freedom, or anything else.
My point being, Obama can lie about anything in the most simplistic and demonstrably false ways imaginable, and get away with it. And I have zero faith in Boehner and co to effectively counter him on any issue, even the ones they actually do try to take him on .
As to your other point, and correct me if I misunderstand you, you’re basically saying that the dems may turn on Obama. I have even less faith in that.
Obama is a figure head, an empty suit, a creation of the dems. He is their party’s candidate for POTUS, and make no mistake. The dems will be behind him lock step come November.
On second thought , having just read newrouter’s post, I feel better, now that mitten’s told ’em off. That oughta hold ’em.
GO MITTENS!!!!
needs bronzing
Limbaugh, mc4ever59, may speak extemporaneously for the most part during his daily three hour stint, but he does so from a deep base of knowledge and experience, I think. So when he sniffs something in the air, it’s often worthwhile to give his perceptions a thought or two, simply on the grounds that he’s having them. That doesn’t mean his perceptions will always be right, or prove right, but that he has a decent track record and deserves consideration. It isn’t everyday he propounds a story as extensively as he has done with this debt ceiling story today (and, I believe, will continue to do with this particular story tomorrow and in days to come). Just see, and give it some thought.
U.S. Has Earth’s Largest Energy Resources
sowell
link
It doesn’t count. All that matters is that in 2008 Rick Santorum was talking to a catholic university about Satan attacking America and Sarah Palin was stupid.
Oh and I forgot to mention that Sarah Palin’s daughter is a slut and shows how Republicans are total hypocrites on moral issues.
Sounds to me like he wants a market based on high fuel prices.
I read your link, sdferr. Interesting. While I feel we’re on the same side, just coming at things differently and from different directions, I sense you disagree with my basic premise.
First , a couple of disclaimers on my part. I’m an independent. I have no use for the dems, to the point that some time ago I concluded that I would never again so much as consider voting for one. I’m getting to that point with the GOP.
I also don’t listen to Rush or any of the talking heads, radio or tv. I acknowledge their standing in our culture and politics, and am fine with people who follow them on a regular basis. They’re not for me.
You point to this link as being a possible begining of the end for Obama, that his 5th column may be turning on him. I doubt it for numerous reasons, but for the purpose of your post and link to Rush, I doubt this whole thing ends up being more much ado about nothing, and here’s two reasons why.
1) In Rush’s own words, it’s complicated. Right there puts doubt into how much of an issue it will be, much less that the public will latch onto it. Too many variables. It’s also an old story. Ended badly in public for Boehner and co, and as usual, there wasn’t much fight back from them. Ryan? Has done some good stuff, some good ideas. And where’s the traction on his points and issues? Blunted more by those in his own party then by the dems.
2) Three words; ‘fast and furious’. The deaths of U.S. field agents, over 300 Mexican nationals, criminal negligence galore, and the real possibility of this being a lead in to a direct assault on the 2nd amendment, and what do we have. The dems openly defying and obstructing the investigation, and getting away with it. Nixon was impeached for watergate, and no one died. There is more than enough here to warrant a push for impeachment and prison terms for Obama, Holder, and others. But the GOP is playing kabuki theater.
Not much coverage, and even less outrage for what may be a constitutional coup.Yet you expect that a ‘complex’ story from some months back about Obama lying to Boehner and Cantor about their talks on the budget deal is what will bring him down, and the same media will lead the charge?
This isn’t in anyway intended to put you down. I truly wish I could share in your enthusiasm, but I can’t.
Video killed Romney’s rebranding strategy?
I don’t think I expressed enthusiasm, so much as broached an interesting set of questions by pointing to Limbaugh’s curiosity, mc4ever59. It seems to me, along with Limbaugh, that there’s a phenomenon here you haven’t addressed, and Limbaugh himself is only beginning to address. Why the WaPo? Why now? Why the NYT coming? Why now?
What hasn’t happened regarding Fast and Furious, or any number of other ripe questions, doesn’t have the least bearing on these questions. Or, I don’t see the bearing, outside restating a truism everyone’s mama knows.
Rep. Ryan rolls out his budget plan tomorrow. There is a linkage with the debt ceiling in that, so far as fiscal considerations go. We’ll see how it plays out.
Again, I take no issue with your points, sdferr. I just don’t believe they’ll end up amounting to much, if anything.
Restating truisms that everyone’s mama knows just may be the point. And the bearing with fast and furious and other issues is that if you can’t beat this guy on such events, how is something like this going to be the ‘game changer’ or the tipping point. I hope it is. I hope anything is, as I feel the damage done to this country by another Obama term will be massive.
A useless GOP that hasn’t been able to make any headway with any of the above, a complicit, fanatically liberal media, and a public that is easily swayed and in general, doesn’t seem to give a damn about much more than who won “survivor” or “American idol”.
The phenomena of the Washington Post stirring rumblings about ‘The One’ and Rush’s points are indeed very interesting and unusual. As you say, ‘we’ll see’ if amounts to anything tangible and lasting.
Sorry for the lag. I’m of the two finger typing technique. Also known as brutally and annoyingly slow.
“. . . how is something like this going to be the ‘game changer’ or the tipping point[?]”
Yep. The very truism is defied by the Post article, is the simple gist. Limbaugh, partisan that he is, reads the article to say “Obama lied” and may well be correct, simply. Mickey Kaus, a Democrat, reads the article to say “Obama blew it.” But in both cases, and others, what we see is precisely the change against the truism, “a complicit, fanatically liberal media”. And what? Not solely the Post, but the Times, and a Woodward book too? The serious criticism of Obama in the article is strangely new in the Post environs.
Hmmm. Seems different, doesn’t it? The very thing against which the GOP rails, against which conservatives rail, against which we here speak in derision, is the rule broken in this article. We only suspect such rule breaking isn’t done lightly, without forethought, and most often, without design. Something may be up.
OT but OMFreakingG.
Anyone else seen this? It is for real. Remember how some of us have mocked Obama his lunch lottery? How, if you donate to his campaign, just a few bucks, you enter a lottery to stuff your piehole alongside King Barack?
Looks like Mittens really, really wants to be just like Barry.
Check it out:
https://www.mittromney.com/donate/grab-a-bite-march
Opportunities to meet with supporters and focus on the issues that matter most to you mean a lot to Mitt.
These contests are always fun to be a part of — especially when the country’s best cheeseburger, fries, and chocolate milkshake combo is involved.
Donate $5 today to be automatically entered for the chance to grab a bite with Mitt.
Are Santorum and Newt copying Barry as well?
“Something may be up.”
‘rats jumping the good ship baracky?
Perhaps, I noted, it shall be, tangentally Limbaugh-related, an interesting set of, dare I say, questions.
You know with just a little work they might have found something they could modify to make a memorable sound “bite” out of it.
if you win ax about the dog for fun
Jan. 6 on The Blaze:
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — In a sort of power lunch for the not-so-powerful, President Barack Obama broke bread Friday with four winners of a contest for people who give to his campaign in small amounts.
The suggested donation to enter the drawing: $3.
The winners, including a teacher and an Afghanistan war veteran, gathered at a restaurant in Washington. The Obama re-election campaign has offered the meals with the president, first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to boost online contributions.
Oh dear, Mitt… you asked for more money than Barack: $5. Did you really have to make your lunch lottery more expensive than Barry’s? Living up to the Republican reputation of avarice… at least you didn’t say “I’ll bet you $10,000 you can have lunch with me!”
All good and very intriguing, sdferr. I hope it turns out well. My hope in this instance is that it’s followed through, and aggressively so. I want it to be seen through with the full backing of the post and nyt, and not end up dying on the vine, with the original reporters under the bus.
If so, for it to expand into other ares, as in “what else is this guy up to and lying about?” And for the GOP to take advantage and not blow it out their asses.
I know, I’m getting greedy. But strike while the iron’s hot, and all.
R. Stanton Scott, apparently you wouldn’t recognize a free market if it was wearing a big neon sign that said “Free Market” while standing on the corner of Free and Market listening to a reunion of Free singing their new song “Market.”
So now Mittens is all in on the cheap chow deal, huh?
Burgers and shakes and arugula- oh my!
–
How many times did George H.W. Bush repeat his “read my lips” line in 1988?
You know, sdferr, in thinking some more about your points, and rereading the Limbaugh link, this whole thing is way off the beaten path. Maybe in being disappointed so many times in the past with “this is it! this time we got him!” stories and events that blew away with the next good breeze, I was too hasty in my cynicism to dismiss it all out of hand. But this is all way out of character for said players.
But for the same reasons, I’ll keep my guard up and enthusiasms tempered.
bristol palin asks:
Why Is the Story About Malia Obama Vacationing in Mexico Disappearing from the Web?
What. The. Fuck?
Biden, on Bin Ladin:
Jimmy Fucking Carter had a more audacious plan. I suspect Gen. Washington might have a quibble or three as well.
How about this flashback? Diamond had it all laid out in pretty good detail before the last election, and even now we can’t get the Establishment to think it, much less say it.
“Obama’s current attempts to pretend he’s the oil and gas President.”
C’mon Jeff,
I don’t think we’ve ever had a more effective snake oil and hot air salesman evah!
“Sen. OBAMA: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.”
What he left out:
So I wouldn’t get the blame and then miss the opportunity to take advantage of it.
OT: Saw this post from Glenn Reynolds earlier today, and wanted to call attention to it.
I doubt very much that either Dharun Ravi or his lawyer think Jeff’s arguments are fundamentally unserious.
“You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan.”
Saying it again for the record. Coming soon: BinDead Laden pics, leaked despite the highest levels of security (/s) and regardless of potential damage to national security.
Okay, I’ll take gutsy calls for $100, Alex.
[This call by Reagan in the ’80’s was gustsier than Obama’s call in the “oughts” to cancel deployment of missile defense systems in Europe.]
Uhh, “what was Reagan’s decision to deploy nuclear missiles in West Germany?”
“Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev!”
Sadaam Hussein: You have 48 hours to pack your shit and move out!
Well certainly it was more audacious than lobbing a couple of cruise missles at him.
Personally, I think the Entebbe mission and the airstrike on Osirak were more daring. Better executed too (but fortunes of war and all).
Sherman’s march!
Omaha beach!
Sorry,
My bunker can accomodate only so much bullshit before it combusts.
Wolffe at Quebec.
Washington crossing the Delaware.
I don’t think this meme should become too obscure for the young and proletariat to comprehend, because 500 years is a long time. I think we can keep the “gutsy” within a time frame that most intelligent people can comprehend, and make people understand how trivial the Bin Laden decision was (as if any other decision deservsed any consideration at all.)
Berger,
You’re prolly right, I’m sure Biden meant to say 500 days
Normandy. Hiroshima.
Since the bar is set, I’ll call this one gutsy:
G’night all,
KEEP FIRING!!!
Ok one more,
From CBS News?
Maybe sdferr (via Rush) is on to something.
“il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace”*
You’re prolly right, I’m sure Biden meant to say 500 days.
I think, by now, the Dems have learned to use Biden’s rantings as a a sympathetic ploy to the millions of Americans who are learning to deal with the rantings of their progenitors as the cost of being able to use their reputations and finances in the progression of the “cause.”
We don’t necessarily nee t surrender that ground.
Biden is the guy who said FDR went on television to talk to the American People.
He meant 500 years. Because he is, indeed, that stupid.
So this is how people from Delaware are? That’s all I can assume, since Biden is her most famous son, and he’s talking all the time.
To get on stage and basically say, “I want to lick Obama’s bunghole. His spine may or may not be steel, but his sphincter is like a chocolate Pop Tart right out of the toaster to me!”
Delaware – your rep is taking a huge hit. It’s like when Voinovich started blubbering about how John Bolton was going to blow up his grandkids. All of a sudden Ohio goes from ” The Northwest Territory, settled with tomahawk and flintlock”, to “men who cry over nominations”.
Think how lucky Chicago and Honolulu count themselves that FROTUS isn’t from either place.
Oops, Biden’s from PA, isn’t he?
Wow. The double bunghole-licking whammy.
Obama told us what he wanted to happen, why it needed to happen, and how he preferred it to happen. It happened exactly that way, yet his supporters absolutely believe he had nothing to do with it.
There is no way to reason with people that fucking retarded.
And Joltin’ Joe Biden solidifies his lead as the #1 reason for term limits.
Biden’s from Pennsylvania, but it’s the Delaware voters who kept sending him to D.C.
…which, if he lived in Georgia, we’d be tempted to send him out of state as much as possible too…
…kinda makes me wonder why our two Senators aren’t Jimmy Carter and Ted Turner…
Doolittle’s Raid.
Midway.
Patton and the 3rd Army coming to the rescue of Bastogne.
Inchon.
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the 20th Maine on Little Round Top.
A few dozen instances by Robert E. Lee and maybe more by Nathan Bedford Forrest.
The list of audacious actions in battle is almost inexhaustible. And that’s just by the American’s. If you want to talk about all timer’s you probably have to throw in Pearl Harbor and 9/11 for audaciousness, but again that’s just the ones involving Americans.
In other worlds: Sarah Palin asks media to scrub story about her children and their Secret Service protection. Media immediately complies.
Allowing 14 y/o to go to Mexico w/o a parent?
Gutsy call.
Re: Biden.
Operation Catapult.
The Raid on Entebbe.
The Raid on Cabanatuan.
Lee’s attack at Chancellorsville.
I mean, we know the President’s speechwriters use Wikipedia. Couldn’t Slow Joe’s do the same?
I don’t have a problem with the scrubbing of the story, per se–security wise, she’d be a big target for the cartels.
However, letting her go there in the first place should prompt some searching scrutiny, which, alas, will not be forthcoming.
Paul Ryan at AEI, budget roll out, live.
Hell the Bin Laden raid wasn’t as audacious as naming Joe his vp.
Never mind the stupidity of putting Malia in danger. What about the danger to Secret Service agents? It’s one thing to put your daughter in danger. It’s another when your actions also put a lot of other people at risk.
I suspect the head of the Secret Service was furious when he heard about these plans.
Ya want gutsy? Try calling the guy who carved Mount Rushmore anything to his face but “Mr. Borglum.”
I wouldn’t go to Mexico NOW. That’s a dangerous place.
“You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan.”
That made me laugh as a Soldier and a historian (OK, so I got a BA and MA in Hisotry…) as hard as anything I have read in many a week.
Now all we need is to photoshop a picture of O! watching a screen in place of Washington in the famous painting of him crossing the Delaware.