printHe voted for McMussolini.
He finds great merit in the crocodile tears Bush shed in his presence over soldiers the former president as good as coffined. Obama’s grim visit to Dover, Delaware, to bear witness to the sad specter of young men carrying the coffins of their fallen comrades—this he find utterly unbelievable.
He “thinks” the “president should give the generals, the commanders on the ground, as many troops as they need to win.”
To insure the estimated 12 million uninsured, he suggests taking “some of the unspent stimulus. We have 85 percent of the stimulus unspent. … For 35 to $40 billion a year, you could insure those people, not $2 trillion, not 1.4.”
Vis-a-vis ObamaCare, he doesn’t know “any Republican who would try to take over one- sixth of the U.S. economy.” Evidently this Oracle had not heard of the Bush Medicare prescription-drug program. It may not have been a sixth of the economy, but George sure began the ball rolling with that behemoth of a bill.
Neither is he familiar with “one Republican who would put forth the — this irresponsible cap-and-trade bill.” How about that hypocrite he voted for? McCain fulminates against Obama’s tax-and-trade, but “in January 2003, the Senators from Arizona, together with Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), “introduced legislation to cap and trade emissions of greenhouse gases.” (While electioneering, McCain suspended this particular plan to sunder the economy.)
I give you the King of Irrational Partisanship, RUSH LIMBAUGH, in a Sunday interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace.
Update I (Nov. 3): From the Comments Section: “When somebody more ‘acceptable’ turns out an effective opposition to the left maybe I’ll get excited about Rush’s shortcomings.”
That’s amazing. Republican’ chest-thumping warfare projects have brought us to this economic disaster. Yet, nothing changes in the mind of the dyed-in-the-wool Republican. Ron Paul exists; vigorously so. I exist. Chuck Baldwin exists. But no matter how often you point out the deep chasms between Republicans, on the one hand, and Constitutionalists, Taft Republicans, and classical liberals, on the other—the same people keep cheering for the blowhards and blonds of the Stupid Party. Face it, people are collectivists who have to belong to a group, no matter how errant it is in its philosophy.
It’s no use, but here’s my two-cents:
Addicted To That Rush
It’s About Federalism, Stupid!
Update II: We’ve had this attempt at a conversation whereby a non-interventionist foreign policy—my own—was mischaracterized for the purpose of discrediting. Constitutional principles aside, the mind boggles at the blind support for the Bush war boondoggles given their miserable failure.
So let me repeat—probably not for the last time—what I wrote here:
“We’ve adjudicated the last 8 years of foreign policy here on BAB in blog posts and in article on IlanaMercer.com. My perspective, which comports with that of Paul, albeit with some differences, has been vindicated. I’m surprised war mongers are unrepentant, and are still plumping for preemptive war against countries that have not aggressed against the US given the lessons of Iraq. I guess when it’s not your kid who’s hobbling around on prostheses or dead, it doesn’t much move the mind, much less the heart. The “isolationism” pejorative is lobbed by neoconservatives when they wish to discredit those of us who believe in fighting just wars only. It’s like pacifist.”
The idea that defending your borders and controlling who enters your country and stays in it are passive is ludicrous. We don’t do any of these basic housekeeping duties; but we level far-away countries and drop dumb bombs on their impoverished neighborhoods. Way to go! How brave! Individuals who still support this moral perversion are twisted sons of bitches.
Oh, there’s another thing ditto heads forbid, so let me break the rule as is my wont. The military most certainly does commit atrocities. Ask Abeer Qasim Hamza. Wait a sec; you can’t, becasue she’s dead, raped first by the American untouchables.
Rush on Afghanisan/Iraq:
“I don’t have the benefit of knowledge that George Will has, so I trust the experts, and to me they’re the people in the U.S. military.
But these are — these are — you know, the surge in Iraq — same thing. We went — it worked”
The above is just an example of the rightwing wishful thinking. The surge “worked” – huh? We have 120,000 troops and a similar number of contractors still held captive by our policies in Iraq.
And the “experts” in the US military are the flag officer politicians, not the grunts in the trenches – whom Rush adheres to – the same type experts who were winning for a decade in Vietnam.
Of course, most of the left is equally partisan – a war is no good only if done by a Bush – an Obama war, however, is fine!
IM-“Evidently this Oracle had not heard of the Bush Medicare prescription-drug program. It may not have been a sixth of the economy, but George sure began the ball rolling with that behemoth of a bill.”
Funny how Ol Rushie overlooks this little detail !
MP-“Of course, most of the left is equally partisan – a war is no good only if done by a Bush – an Obama war, however, is fine!”
The hypocrisy on both sides is amazing !
“I give you the King of Irrational Partisanship, RUSH LIMBAUGH…” Ilana Mercer
No thanks. I gave him up for truth years ago.
My attitude this election is “When in doubt, vote em out.” The only politician I don’t doubt is Ron Paul. If possible, I will vote neither Democrat nor Republican but third party, no matter how silly. Why pretend there are two parties?
I wonder if the Roman Empire had a Rush Limbaugh to explain to the Senate, how well the ‘surges’ in Britain, Judea, and the slave (slavic) countries to the north were doing the will of the people. Read the interview, surprisingly did not need a shot of whiskey to go to sleep afterward.
For the sake of argument: 1. Limbaugh, while he may have thrown his partisan support behind the GOP candidate last year, had always been uncomfortable with McCain’s collectivist streak.
2. My impression was that Limbaugh was being glib when he proposed using the stimulus money to help the uninsured afford health coverage. He quipped at the end of his proposal, “..if you’re going to do it that way.”
3. I won’t argue with you about his foreign policy stance, since I share your thinking.
4. re: Dover. When I see video of coffins passing while the camera zooms in on His Stoic Holiness for the Hero Shot, you’ll have to excuse me if I think it’s another standard political photo-op. He should be afforded them like any other President. I don’t associate him with being the kind of man who makes “classy decisions”.
5. I would have been interested to hear Ms. Mercer’s take on Limbaugh’s opening salvo’s concerning Obama’s understanding of the role of government. Then again, you’ve written about it extensively in this excellent blog. Thank You.
You don’t have to give Rush to us. We who read your blog already know that Rush shills for the Republican party and statism. He has some constitutional concepts although they are few. He is still enamored with William F. Buckley and his neo-conservatism
Limbaugh is dynamite. He ain’t always right but he’s in there fighting it out with the philistines tooth and nail and taking it on the chin from the left and their minions in the media. When somebody more “acceptable” turns out an effective opposition to the left maybe I’ll get excited about Rush’s shortcomings. Until then maybe we ought to join him in the fight.
IM,
Your note appears to conflate Limbaugh’s nose-holding “vote” for McClueless as some sort of support. Limbaugh was in fact one of the few critics of McCain, and a vocal and stinging critic he was and remains. Likewise, Maha-Rushie was and remains a vocal ridiculer of the Medicare Prescription boondoggle and of the Troubled Recovery Asset Program.
The guy has his problems. (He could do far better to align with Libertarians, for example.)
One of them isn’t blind partisanship. His support for the Conservative over the RINO in NY23 demonstrates a very rational rejection of the GOP and its ideal candidate.
Beyond Rush is a growing alliance of Libertarians and Republicans.
Rush’s Rule:
1. See no evil (Republicans).
2. Hear no evil (Republicans).
3. Speak no evil (of Republicans).
Ilana, do you have a good radio voice? We need a “moderate” voice that heaps scorn on both left and right (and loony libertarians too).
I agree with Rush much more than other conservatives or libertarians. Ron Paul is as naive about foreign policy as is our current “Commander-in-Chief”.
One believes that by being nice, telling everyone how bad America is, and offering to transfer our wealth to the world will make everyone like us and put down their weapons – and the lambs and the lions will start sleeping together.
The other believes that until the bad guys are on our shores we should not take any preemptive action against our enemies, not even support them by weapon or treasure – democracy or dictatorship is irrelevant. Until we are directly under the ICBM heading for Washington or New York, we should just mind our own navels and play house. [Mischracterizing my position—and Paul’s—is … a straw argument.]
So I would take Rush over that sort of naivete any day of the week. Paul and Obama – two versions of ignorance about human nature and the power flow in the world today.
“Beyond Rush is a growing alliance of Libertarians and Republicans.” ran
Won’t work this time with me. The Republicans will never take on the banking cartel. Plus, how can they ever live down Lincoln? Best just let that party dissolve and a new third party pick up the pieces. We can survive the Democrats in the meantime.
I won’t be fooled again by the Republican Party.
the blowhards and blonds of the Stupid Party Ilana Mercer
Missing link? [The Primate family]
“It’s no use, but here’s my two-cents: “ Ilana Mercer
It is worth far more than two cents. I voted for Bush in 2000 but by 2004 abstained and by 2008 wrote in Ron Paul. I think you had a lot to do with that. I now agree with you so much it is almost boring to me but you were there way ahead of me. Thank you very much. I told what’s his name at World Net Daily that you were his best. I have out grown him and Ann Coulter but there is no outgrowing you apparently.
I do my own thinking even if I risk your wrath so you know I don’t flatter (much).
[Thanks; means a lot]
“So I would take Rush over that sort of naivete any day of the week. Paul and Obama – two versions of ignorance about human nature and the power flow in the world today.” Haym
We have the Pacific Ocean as one border, the Atlantic as another, the Gulf of Mexico and Mexico as another and friendly Canada to the North. Communism has fallen, China is our biggest trading partner, we have by far the strongest military in the world AND WE ARE STILL IN MORTAL DANGER?!
Does everyone else in the world except Israel and maybe Europe have to be dead before we feel safe?
Before we blame the world for terrorism, how about we get our military bases off their soil?
Ron Paul is the wisest man you are ever likely to encounter. He is correct in every way I can think of. He is hacking at the very roots of evil.
I do not believe there will EVER be a real alliance between non-interventionist Constitutional libertarians and modern Republicans. The former want to roll back Bush’s Leave No Child Behind and Prescription Drug Plans, get OUT of the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, and War on Illiterate Pushtun Warlords etc. – the latter get animated to teach abstinence in governmental schools and stop gay marriage. I hardly care much if you can or cannot “legally” marry your toaster. Other than Ron Paul and a small handful, how many Republicans propose to ROLLBACK the Welfare State or to REDUCE the Warfare State like overseas bases? No, libertarians are NOT compatible with Republicans.
What is interesting it the check out the website that RAN (above) had – it was celebrating the drug bust of some Corzine flunky in NJ. Well, frankly, no real libertarian should be celebrating the War on Drugs.
I have followed the Republicans for 40 + years from Rockefeller’s spending to Nixon’s wage and price controls to Reagan’s drug wars to Bush’s massive deficits/wars/suppression of civil liberties….. – Going down that route is just an alternative path to statist oblivion and bankruptcy.
P.S. Haym is wrong on foreign policy. [Alas, despite his brilliance—Hayim is a professor of space engineering, or something impossible.]
“I give you the King of Irrational Partisanship, RUSH LIMBAUGH…”
LOL! Could I use this quote on my Facebook page?
[Sure. give us a link]
“Ron Paul is as naive about foreign policy as is our current “Commander-in-Chief” I try not to make more than one comment on any subject but… Ron Paul is not naïve about foreign policy, he is just not accepting the Republican and Democratic intervention concept of foreign policy. We can support free countries without sending troops and guns or socialist programs that undermine their culture, like Obama’s abortion programs to Catholic countries. Mr. Paul’s enemies use the “isolationism” card against him in order to squash any chance for his argument to be heard. Has anyone ever thought that the third way that Mr. Paul advocates might work. Rush is getting 400 million dollars to speak on his radio program to advocate the US borrowing another billion or two to promote ‘What?”
Hi guys – I didn’t think my comments would create such a stir – not!
First, I was not misrepresenting Ilana – I was representing Ron Paul’s view of foreign policy. I have read and heard him speak often (not live) and I think that what I said above is as accurate a summary of his views as possible in a few sentences.
I would say we are in mortal danger because it would take only one successful effort at exploding a nuke over some part of the US to knock us back into the 1800s. Nothing in the Paul foreign policy platform eradicates this possibility. (Unless I missed it – if so please provide me with a URL.) Preemption provides that attempt.
I am an Independent. I am no sycophant of any political party.
I support removal of most military bases from foreign soil – but some alliances require some of these. I support a border fence with Mexico, as I do the Israeli fence. I support bringing back our factories to US soil. I support a flat tax with no lower income limit – everyone should share in the funding of our society as best they can.
It is just common sense that we should solve problems when they are small. There were people in the early 1930s – I believe Churchill – who wanted to see a French and British expeditionary force remove Hitler. France had just cause due to Hitler’s violations of the Treaty of Versailles. How would the world have evolved without Hitler and WWII? I believe that the Ron Pauls of the day, in the US and in Europe, prevailed, allowing Hitler to grow to the point that there was not choice.
And even when there was full-scale war in Europe, the US was still hesitant to do more than send money and arms – not realizing that the Atlantic and Pacific were not buffers. The Japanese proved that with Pearl Harbor.
The main difference between now and then is that the US was safe for a few years (remember Hitler was not far behind the US in the creation of an A-Bomb) so it could militarize our industry and put millions into arms. We had a buffer for a while then.
Today, there is no buffer. Our society sits on many layers of technology. Take away that technology and our society comes to a stand-still. The more technology, the more vulnerable we are. No cell phones, no energy, no food.
And while we could retaliate by eliminating the country from which such an attack on us emanated, we would still be in the 1800s. Horse-drawn carriage anyone?
Yes, space engineering. Our hope for the future, but unfortunately, not in my lifetime.
And let me say – I love all of you, but – even though the US has not been so effective in foreign affairs (except for winning the Cold War thanks to Reagan) I am right about foreign policy.
This is juicy – in case you believe the Health Care Bill doesn’t cover enough health care, some Republicans want to add FAITH HEALING to the Health Care Bill –
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1109/prayer_coverage.php3
And Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who sponsored the provision in the House and whose district includes a Christian Science school, Principia College, said, “Those religious traditions that utilize nontraditional care … should have them covered in any health care bill.”
“Nothing in the Paul foreign policy platform eradicates this possibility. “ Haym
There is no perfect security in this world. Even if nukes did not exist bio-weapons could SELECTIVELY kill billions. Ron Paul believes in a strong DEFENSE but also in not CREATING enemies in the first place.
The rest of your comment is target rich but I should not be greedy and I am tired besides.
“Today, there is no buffer. The more technology, the more vulnerable we are. No cell phones, no energy, no food. And while we could retaliate by eliminating the country from which such an attack on us emanated, we would still be in the 1800s.” Haym
That’s just silly. First you are overestimating the damage a nuclear device would cause. You could cut out entire states from the US and we would still survive. Verizon won’t build a cell phone network in the remaining states? All engineers are located in just one city? NY is gone so we can’t… do what? Perhaps if we saved 250 billion dollars or more every year we could more effectively ensure our ability to recovery from such a catastrophe.
Second, you imply that more technology is the goal of life. If creating ever more intertwined and fragile technology will require us to police the world and circumvent the freedoms we enjoy, perhaps we should resist that technology in favor of something more discrete and freedom-preserving.
[Technology and advancement are perfectly conducive and compatible with security and prosperity.]