American Demagogue

Rush Limbaugh Calls for Obama to Fail, Conservatives Applaud!

Yes in other words they WANT a worldwide Depression and the Collapse of the United States, Traitors and demagogues every last one.

Where is our American Tarpeian Rock?

When will American Politcos come to the realiztion this toxic man is a 21st century Joseph McCarthy? An Oxy Contin swilling, Viagra by the gross,sexual tourist who is a pompous overinflated gas bag.

Rush represents intellectual vigor in the Conservative movement?
Ane Rand and William F Buckley were Conservatives ideological and philosophical trailblazers.

Any wonder Conservative ideology is so discredited?

Rush Limbaugh Calls for Obama to Fail, Conservatives React

byJonas Oliver
Appearing as the keynote speaker on the third and final day of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh rallied conservatives with a pointed attacks on the Obama administration, not the least of which was his explanation of why he hoped Barack Obama would fail.

"Let me add a caveat here. My friends, I know what's going on. I know what's going on. We're in the aspects here of an historic presidency. I know that. But let me be honest again. I got over the historical aspects of this in November. President Obama is our president. President Obama stands for certain things. I don't care, he could be a Martian. He could be from Michigan, I don't know -- just kidding.

Doesn't matter to me what his race is. It doesn't matter. He's liberal is what matters to me. And his articulated -- his articulated plans scare me. Now, I understand we can't say we want the President to fail, Mr. Limbaugh. That's like saying -- this is the voice of the New Castrati, by the way, guys who have lost their guts. You can't say Mr. Limbaugh that you want the President to fail because that's like saying you want the country to fail. It's the opposite. I want the country to survive. I want the country to succeed," Limbaugh ranted to wild applause and cheers on Sunday night.

Addressing Limbaugh's comments over the weekend, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation that Rush Limbaugh has become the voice of the Republican party.

"He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party. He has been up front about what he views and hasn't stepped back from that which is he hopes for failure. He said it. I compliment him for his honesty but that's their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh. I think that's the wrong philosophy for America."

On Monday however, RNC Chairman Michael Steele took a different tack with respect to Limbaugh's role within the GOP.

According to U.S. News & World Report, when Steele appeared on D.L. Hughley's CNN program on Saturday night the RNC chairman addressed Limbaugh's stated desire that Barack Obama fail, saying: "So let's put it into context here. Let's put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly."

Steele's comments were echoed by House Republican Whip Eric Cantor who also sought to distance the party faithful from Limbaugh's comments, by saying"Nobody-no Republican, no Democrat-wants this president to fail, nor do they want this country to fail or the economy to fail," reports U.S. News and World Report.

DeWayne here no folks Rush Limbaugh is not an entertainer, he is an American Demagogue!

Bush, Obama and the Gaza Blitz

Unwilling to control its fighters, who fired scores of missiles into Israel at the end of their

six-month ceasefire, Hamas gave Israel the provocation it needed to deliver a savage blow to the Palestinian enclave in Gaza.

Saturday was the bloodiest day in the history of the Palestinian people since being driven from their homes in the War of 1948. One thousand were killed or wounded, as the Israeli Air Force conducted over a hundred strikes -- on graduation ceremonies for Hamas fighters, police stations and storage sites for rockets.

About Israel's right and duty to defend its border towns, there is no dispute. When Hamas permits Gaza to be used as a launch pad for rockets, it must expect retaliation. Nor can Hamas claim some right to dictate the limits of that retaliation.

Yet the wisdom of so savage a retribution for rockets that killed not one Israeli is open to question. And crass Israeli politics seems to be behind this premeditated and planned blitz.

With Likud's hawkish "Bibi" Netanyahu ahead in the polls for the Feb. 10 election, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Labor's candidate, had to show that he, too, could be ruthless with Hamas.

Kadima Party candidate and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has an even greater need than the highly decorated Barak to show toughness. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, departing in scandal, wants to exit in a blaze of glory, to blot out the memory of a botched war against Hezbollah that he launched in the summer of 2006.

However, while Israel's politicians all seem to have a stake in these devastating strikes, Israel herself will pay the price.

Given the casualty toll, over 300 dead and 1,300 wounded as of this writing, Hamas will have to exact its pound of flesh. The Hamas wing that seeks renewed war with Israel will now shout into silence the wing working with Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak on a new ceasefire.

The moderate Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas, who has been talking to Israel, testifying to her good faith, has been made to appear the puppet and fool. A new intifada spreading to the West Bank, with suicide attacks inside Israel, is now possible.

Moderate Arabs, who have recognized Israel or backed peace, will now be seen by the Arab street as appeasers impotent to stop the public suffering of the Palestinian people.

As for President Bush's hopes of midwifing a peace that would create a Palestinian state, they are as dead as the Annapolis process he set in train. In advancing peace in the Middle East, Bush's eight-year record is now a near-absolute failure.

For four years, Bush refused to talk to Yasir Arafat, though Bill Clinton had negotiated with him, as had four Israeli prime ministers, two of who shared a Nobel Prize with Arafat. In his second term, Bush, after insisting Hamas be included in free elections in Palestine, refused to recognize Hamas when it won those elections.

Arafat was a terrorist and Hamas is a terrorist organization, declared Bush, and we don't negotiate with terrorists. Yet, Bush de-listed Libya as a state sponsor of terror and sent Condi Rice to chat up Col. Gadhafi, though Gadhafi still has on his hands the blood of scores of American school kids from the Lockerbie massacre of 1989 that Libya and Gadhafi engineered

For eight years, like the "dummy" in a hand of bridge, Bush has sat mute as his Israeli partner, Sharon or Olmert, played America's cards as well as their own. The Bush response to Saturday's carnage, as anticipated, was to blame Hamas for causing it and urge Israelis to be careful about civilian casualties as they go about their reprisals.

Whatever Israel decides, we support. For eight years that has been the most reliable guide to U.S. Middle East policy.

And Barack Obama? Forty-eight hours after the Israeli blitz began, he and his national security team remain silent.

Hopefully, Obama will bring with him a new Mideast policy, one made in the U.S.A., for the U.S.A. Hopefully, just as Israel has its private links to Syria through Turkey, to Hamas through Egypt and to Hezbollah, Obama will establish independent U.S. channels to all three, and adopt a separate U.S. policy toward all three, as Israel does.

While the United States must support Israel's right to defend her towns and to strike bases from which Israelis are being attacked, Obama should denounce the collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, by Israel's cutting off their electricity in the dead of winter and denying them the food and medicine many need to survive.

For us to remain silent in the face of this comports neither with our interests or our values. Israel's policy of withholding from the weak and innocent of Gaza, women and children, the necessities of life, to punish the guilty who rule at the point of a gun, is a policy that Obama should declare the United States will no longer support with tax dollars.

---

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Let the Conservative Whining Begin

During eight years of Republican rule, conservative talkers had to work hard to find people to blame for the nation's troubles. That won't be a problem anymore.

Paul Waldman | November 25, 2008 |

Over the last eight years, many conservatives, particularly the radio and television hosts who enjoy such loud and lucrative megaphones, have been forced to navigate some difficult rhetorical waters. When your side controls the White House, the Congress (as it did until two years ago), the judiciary, and the business world, how do you argue that you're part of an oppressed group being held down by The Man? It isn't easy, but they did it nonetheless. The "elite" they bellowed at day after day is not those who actually hold power. It's obscure college professors, Hollywood actors, the city council of a town you don't live in, and nonprofit organizations who advocate for things like poor people or the environment or civil liberties. That's the source of your problems, they would say, and that's who you should be mad at.

So the coming transfer of power must make them feel light as air. Now when they begin their daily pity party, they'll actually be able to complain about the people in charge.

And complain they will -- oh, will they ever. There was a time when conservatives saw themselves as the masters of the universe, remaking the world as they would have it. But by now, claims of victimization have woven themselves so tightly into their identity that they barely know how to engage the political world without claiming to be oppressed.

Take this head-scratcher: In the last couple of weeks, conservatives have become positively obsessed with a supposed Democratic plot to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine in order to silence right-wing talk radio (eliminated in 1987, the doctrine mandated ideological balance on radio and television).

The conservative magazine Human Events, for instance, sent out a solicitation last week from conservative radio talker Michael Reagan, with the following soft-sell message: "The radical liberals will do everything in their power to SHUT US DOWN, along with every other conservative voice in America. And they're already telling the world exactly how they're going to do it:THE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE." We MUST take action to STOP them NOW, before they are able to mobilize support for this insidious attempt to SILENCE CONSERVATIVES!" Rest assured, the underlining, bolding, and all caps are in the original. The e-mail also featured a picture of Rush Limbaugh with a Soviet flag photoshopped over his mouth, with the caption, "Stalin Style Socialist Doctrine to Silence Rush Limbaugh and Conservatives."

So brave, this Limbaugh and his lieutenants. Warning of the impending crackdown from the brutal hand of the state makes you seem like a daring rebel, broadcasting your missives from an encampment deep in the forest while the terrified populace huddles around their forbidden radios to hear your message of truth. Si, Subcomandante Rush, don't give up your fight for freedom and justice! Across the land, lonely villagers sing folk songs of your courage!

The only problem is that the plot is completely imaginary -- Barack Obama has gone on record opposing a reinstatement of the doctrine, and the congressional leadership has zero interest in the idea. As Matthew Yglesias wrote last week, "Political movements mischaracterize the other side's general goals all the time. But I've never heard of anything like the current conservative mania for blocking a particular legislative provision that nobody is trying to enact."

Meanwhile, gun stores can't keep enough arms on the shelves, as desperate Second Amendment heroes build their stockpiles in anticipation of the disarming of America. They are egged on by the likes of G. Gordon Liddy, who despite being a convicted felon and unrepentant terrorist (among his unconsummated plots were the murder of columnist Jack Anderson and the firebombing of the Brookings Institution) is blessed with a nationally syndicated radio show. Liddy, who during the Clinton years told his listeners, "If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you, and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests," Today, he advises his faithful flock to break whatever laws on gun registration that might apply to them. "The first thing you do is, no matter what law they pass, do not -- repeat, not -- ever register any of your firearms," Liddy recently said. "Because that's where they get the list of where to go first to confiscate. So, you don't ever register a firearm, anywhere." Be vigilant, bunker-dwellers, and make sure you have an ample supply of canned goods and ammunition.

It's no coincidence that the uptick in bitching and moaning comes as Republicans have become isolated ideologically, demographically, and geographically. The last factor -- that the GOP is now largely a Southern party -- gives the complaints endless fuel. As the center of gravity within the Republican Party has moved south, it has embraced that variant of Southern culture built on nurturing your sense of grievance and perseverating on your defeats. This is an old story -- even before the Civil War, Southerners couldn't talk enough about how those elitist Northerners were looking down their noses at the South. And is there a group of people anywhere in the world so obsessed with glorifying and celebrating a war they lost? A century and a half ago, my people were suffering through the Czar's pogroms, but I don't spend my weekends re-enacting them. Not that it's just conservative Southerners who have a hefty chip stapled to their shoulders. Grievance and complaint has become the lingua franca of the right all over the country. Politicians' desire to nurture these feelings gives us such spectacles as the one we saw on the penultimate night of the Republican convention, where the cross-dressing, opera-loving New Yorker Rudy Giuliani berated Barack Obama for being "cosmopolitan," while the multimillionaire, Harvard-trained industrial scion Mitt Romney bawled about the snootiness of the "Eastern elite." By the time Sarah Palin (now the de facto leader of the party's resentment wing) took the stage, the assembled crowd was mad as hell, and they weren't going to take it anymore.

This kabuki of complaint is built on a running series of imaginary slights. Democrats said that being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, isn't really an adequate preparation for the presidency? They're attacking small towns, and the people who live in them! Democrats want to get out of Iraq? They're attacking our troops! Democrats point out that the immortal Joe the Plumber would actually fare better under Barack Obama's tax plan than John McCain's? They're attacking guys with blue collars everywhere!

Not that progressives haven't spent the better part of the last eight years complaining. But most of those complaints have been about things the Bush administration actually did, not some imagined offense to progressives' honor. When the left has complained about what "they" are doing, the word has usually referred to the Bush administration. When the right uses it, it refers to a more amorphous group, defined not by their actions but by their attitude. It's the brie-eaters, the bureaucrats, the secularists, the immigrants, and pretty much anyone that you think might be looking down on you. Now the right will actually have a government to rail against, but I'm guessing the nefarious group keeping them down will remain pretty expansive.

And we haven't even started the annual braying about the "war on Christmas."

source The American Prospect