[Valid Atom 1.0]

Monday, March 5, 2012

When can you tell conclusively that the Rush-Fluke story has "jumped the shark"?

My prediction is the left will way over play this hand...

Do you need inspiration to fight back?  Watch this.  
The hypocrisy, it burns...
Axelrod to go on Bill Maher's show after bashing Rush
It has been a trap all along...and George was in on it.  
As predicted, the left over played this:  Maher is boomeranging on Obama
Paul Theroux:  Hey lefties, we are a bunch of hypocrites!
Legal Insurrection: The real threat to talk radio (it is not what you think)
Don Surber: Rush won over Obama


  1. I dunno. Eight advertisers and counting. Plus Peter Gabriel.

    Do you really think it can be blamed on just "the coverage" this time?

  2. I'm tuning in again tomorrow just to hear what new sponsors show. :)

    Peter Gabriel? Yawn. But Chrissie Hynde must be livid. I wonder if PETA is conflicted about this one?

  3. P.S. I've always loathed Imus anyways.

  4. After a while I'd think it must become a bit tiring picking enemy after enemy to isolate (Alinsky tactic, anyone?), and brushing off sponsor after sponsor, poo-pooing artist after artist.

    At some point I'd think a broader shift must be underway. Do a majority of Americans - male and female - really think that Limbaugh needs to be thought of as politically invincible, the way so many conservative pols do (George Will notwithstanding)?

    Nothing lasts forever.

    Anyway, it's easy to think that a significant cultural force like Limbaugh gets to call all the shots indefinitely, if that's how it's been for the majority of one's life. But history has a way of catching up with all of us, no matter how stalwartly some of us wish to stand athwart it, yelling "STOP!"

    I say this primarily for Chickie's sake, as EBL is pretty reasonable and understands the importance of venting for its own sake. But Chickie seems to be going into full-on Alinsky mode lately, and I'd just like to point that out before I see him go the way of Limbaugh.

    Whatever happened to "The sky is falling!"? ;-)

  5. I think I just heard Uncle Sol offer me some chicken little soup.

  6. Sorry, I couldn't help that last one.

    It was just too evocative.

  7. Let me ask you something Ritmo and be honest: which pundit should represent conservatives if Breitbart and then Limbaugh fall away? Who is reasonable in your view?

  8. (I'm giving you an opportunity of a lifetime there, Ritmo, so think about it. :)

  9. Whatever happened to "The sky is falling!"? ;-)

    I don't think I've ever actually used that line. I once did comment (either on Althouse or on Sundries): "ACORN is falling!"

    I must have been during those very early Breitbart anger outbursts.

  10. It's not up to me to decide.

    Further, it might not even be in anyone's power to identify anyone who could offer the same impact.

    Let me explain:

    I strongly believe that the political cycle goes back and forth in 40-year shifts. 7 out of 10 presidential administrations from 1888 to 1928 were Republican. 7 out of 10 from 1928 to 1968 were Democratic. And so on.

    So I think the issue is that there are generational shifts between left and right, and there is really no amount of strategy or personal leadership that can overcome that.

    I know it must suck to lose power, but the shoe was on the other foot for a long time.

    Lefties were shrill about not being able to get anywhere politically for a generation, so I suppose I shouldn't expect conservatives to feel any less dejected once they realize that now may be their time to experience the same.

    Sometimes people make history, but history decides what the people need at a given time - in a democracy.

    I don't think any "leader" is above that. Some people are better at understanding and writing about suggestions for coping with it. But we are stuck with these two damn political poles, and how society shifts back and forth between them is beyond any single person to change, no matter how skillfully he may ride that wave.

  11. For what it's worth, I think Breitbart was more intelligent, relevant and useful than Limbaugh, but I guess his legacy would have to be to get people to understand the ways in which his "methodology" might have been helpful.

    I still think he was shrill (and pretty angry), but that goes with the territory, to some inevitable degree.

    But again, it's not up to me to decide.

    And yet, Will seems to be the only one from the "start" of this swing (i.e. ca 1980) whose integrity, relevance and insight has remained somewhat intact throughout all of it.

    I think he just knows his (and America's) limits.

    But you don't want someone that boring, do you?

  12. Since 1968, Administrations have more or less traded back and forth. There hasn't been a real landslide since Reagan beat Mondale. One has to be a certain age to even remember that term used accurately. We seem to be becoming more of 50/50 nation, with more or more tight elections at the Presidential level. If you are predicting an Obama landslide this fall you must have information I don't have.

  13. I don't know that it would be a landslide, and don't have reason to predict one. But my feel is that Obama seems more cautious and authentic to people than any challenger, especially Romney, and that that will make all the difference.

    Whether it will be the 2nd of 7 Democratic administrations between 2008 and 2048, we will have to see. The extent of any single win is not the point; the number of presidential administrations a party has just reflects the relative power of that side over a period of time.

  14. Jesus... I can hardly bear to think about the prospect of Democrats in the White House for essentially the rest of my life. I think after just one or two more, I would hang myself from the ceiling fan.

    1. A few more "democrat" administrations and they may be coming and hanging you from the ceiling fan for even thinking such thought, let alone posting them at a blog!

  15. FWIW, I don't listen to any talk radio. Never have. My brother-in-law loaned me a Rush book way back in 1993. I read it and was on the same side with most of the issues, but what little I've known and heard of him, I've often stated that I don't wish him to be my spokesman. He's great for educating and rallying the troops, but it takes a Breitbart or Palin to really make the other side stutter and stammer.

    If you'll allow an agricultural analogy, people like Breitbart and Rush are farmers, who sow the seeds. It's the action of the seeds that produces the crop. We all need to bloom where we are.

    One thing that has been an awakening for me is how few people know who Breitbart is or that he died. We political junkies live and breathe this stuff, but let's face it, many Americans pull the "D" or "R" lever and that's it. A few switch sides, based on their pocketbooks. Breitbart was spot-on when he talked of controlling the narrative. That's what sees the light of day. The MSM is spinning out of control on this Rush issue, conveniently removing the spotlight on rising gas prices, Fast and Furious, the Obama war on religion, and the insanity that Obama calls his foreign policy.

    Those who control the narrative sit at the master controls. The MSM is the enemy.

    1. I think that's the correct thinking of what Rush and Breitbart are doing. The idea from the left is that they are somehow leading the charge, not fueling the fires for change. That's quite a difference. We can all remember when Rush had his "drug" problem. And, look, he's still on the air!

      The leftist progressives are indeed in danger of overplaying their hand. The hypocrisy is extremely evident in this case. But, those darn lefties don't seem to see it that way to a person. How deep does this indoctrination go?

      They need to sort through trash piles and have their comedians dupe people into contributing to Obama in order to get his treasure chest full for a down and dirty election.


I welcome all legitimate comments. Keep it civil. Spam will be deleted. Thanks.