« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Lefties Slam Soros, Barack & Michelle Obama

By: Brian Faughnan (Diary)  |  May 6th, 2009 at 10:05 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

They sort of slammed them — by implication, that is. They don’t have the guts to actually criticize their leaders. The best they can do is pick some conservative who might be guilty of the same offense, and criticize him. Then they leave it to you to connect the dots. As long as you do your homework, you can see they’re biting the hand that feeds… subtly.

In this case, the hypocrites are the team at ThinkProgress. They said nothing when George Soros bragged about having made a cool billion off of the global economic downturn, and seemed delighted at finally getting the recession he’d been predicting:

George Soros, who predicted the global financial crisis twice before, was one of the few people to anticipate and prepare for the current economic collapse…

But other investors failed to take notice of his prediction and his decision to come out of retirement in 2007 to manage the fund made him $US2.9 billion.

And while the financial crisis continued to deepen across the globe, the 78-year-old still managed to make $1.1 billion last year.

‘It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life’s work,’ he told national newspaper The Australian.

ThinkProgress also didn’t raise a stink about Michelle Obama hypocritically parading around in $540 sneakers. Nor did they criticize Barack Obama for the costliest inauguration in American history.

Unable to muster the cojones to criticize one of their own, ThinkProgress goes after one of their favorite targets – Rush Limbaugh:

After more or less reprising his radio show routine, Limbaugh went on to brag about his $400 million contract with Clear Channel Communications. As he continued to gloat about his show’s success, Limbaugh mocked the idea that Americans are suffering, noting, “I’ve never had financially a down year” despite the “supposed” recession…

I’m sure ThinkProgress isn’t going easy on Soros because he bankrolls them. There’s probably some good reason. I wonder if he recognizes the vicious hit they’re taking at him — extremely obliquely.

Update: The Left seems to come unhinged when you attack Soros! Rather than admit he’s contemptible, several are trying to argue that Rush is denigrating those who are hurting during these tough times, while Soros is not. The only thing is, ‘I’m having a very good crisis’ is actually worse than anything Rush has said. And Soros has said plenty of other stuff worthy of our contempt. Once again, they find it hard to be honest about the guy who’s bankrolling them.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Brian Hibbert

    I’m sure they see absolutely no conflict between their love of Soros making Billions at the same time they hate Limbaugh for making a paltry few million.

  • gonzo55

    When you have no belief system, anything you do is consistent… that’s pragmatism, right? When their side does it, it’s gritty realism, when our side does it, it’s dishonorable thievery.

    Just like how the Bush policies now being continued under TheOne (profligate spending, military tribunals, expansion of the welfare state) were evil under GWB are now “pragmatic” and “unplesant, but necessary choices”.

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    There’s a big difference in how the money is made. Rush’s product is completely out in the open and posted on his website (his words). He neither lives nor works near any government or financial center. Soros is a currency and stock manipulator who works in secret or in private offices of monarchs and dictators. He causes and has caused massive suffering of people and countries, and is a convicted criminal. Convicted of insider trading in France, and in 2008 of illegal stock manipulation in Hungary. He also was behind the McCain Feingold campaign finance bill, and is the world’s chief enforcer of global warming/cap and trade. There is nothing remotely similar in the way the two men’s money is made.

  • willingtoengage

    the problem is not that anyone is making money. Perhaps the problem instead is one in where a person is mocking those who are not making $400 million dollars a year and denying the reality of millions of Americans who have lost a job, lost their house, or are facing economic ruin.

    The Soros link includes nothing where Soros is denying that the economy is bad. I thought the whole point of the tea parties was we should reward people who make money – why the attack on Soros? Because you do not like what he does with his money? Indeed, he states that he was able to figure out how to make money in a bad economy.

    Michelle Obama in no way mocks those who cannot afford expensive shoes – and was the outrage the same on the right about Palin’s attire? I thought I remember many people saying that was a “non issue.” So she wears expensive shoes – aren’t people supposed to be able to spend their money how the want? Given Michelle Obama’s otherwise thriftiness with clothes I do not see this rising to the level of a problem..

    Regarding the inauguration – it was mainly a privately funded affair and it was attended by millions – I highly doubt had that many people cared to attend previous inaugurations they would have been cheap. Again, however, Obama did not parade around the fact that the inauguration was costing $170 million and the economy is not that bad. Indeed, the main message of in inaugural address was that fact that the economy was bad and we need to enact sensible policies to address it.

    The argument against Limbaugh, however, was the fact that he is bragging about making $400 million and mocking the idea that America is suffering. He states that “There?s supposedly a recession” – uhm, yes, sir, according to economists we are in a recession. Isn’t this the antithesis of the tea party argument?! If Limbaugh is correct, and America is doing just fine, why is everyone so upset about spending? The disconnect between his view and the real life experiences of millions who have lost their jobs and houses and economic livelihoods is the problem.

    Furthermore, the problem with this post it simply begs the question ? should we slam these people for making all of this money or not? Merely pointing out a lack of equal ?slamming? hardly makes an argument ? You seem to imply that with Soros, the sneakers, and the inauguration that it is a problem to be making/spending all this money in this economy ? so Limbaugh is wrong?

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      [NT]

    • Martin Knight

      Aren’t you curious about why? Could it be because Rush actually did not mock the idea that America is in a recession, or that people are going through difficult times? All he did was talk about himself – that he did well for himself despite a recession.

      If you’re complaining that he’s “bragging” by stating a fact, then what the heck is this; “It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life?s work,” That would be Lefty Sugar Daddy George Soros, “bragging” as well.

      And as for the spending on the inauguration, I do recall the entire Press Corps and the entire Left shrieking to high heaven because George W. Bush’s inauguration cost less than half as much as Barack Obama’s.

      • willingtoengage

        you are right it was not a direct quote on the page. here is what the website posted:
        “LIMBAUGH: But during all this growth I haven?t lost any audience. I?ve never had financially a down year. There?s supposedly a recession, but we?ve got – what is this May? Back in February we already had 102% of 2008 overbooked for 2009. [applause] So I always believed that if we?re going to have a recession, just don?t participate. [laughter]”

        Trying to transcribe the rest of the clip:
        “my point is, even during these bad times, there are growth opportunities, I only know how to optimistic, I’m surrounded by pessimists all the time, and wears thin on me, surrounded by defeatists…”

        So he does say “these bad times” but combined with his comment about a “supposed recession” it clearly shows that he is discounting the bad economic conditions many are facing. The supposed recession is what I think is a valid critique. There are also the 3 additional links in the article that lay out the case that while Limbaugh is making lots of money he is mocking those who are losing everything. He has claimed that people on food stamps are not using them; homeless veterans are a myth despite mounting evidence to the contrary; he says times are not bad now as 26 years ago so suck it up. It seems clear to me that Limbaugh, perhaps one of the few people getting raises in our economy right now, is both not sympathetic to the plight of millions of Americans losing their jobs and homes and blames them for their problems when clearly many people who did act responsibly have let go from their jobs.

        Even with his full comments from the audio clip,I am not complaining that he is bragging that he is making lots of money – my first sentence was “the problem is not that anyone is making money “. Hence, the Soros quotation does not take out my argument. Let Soros and Limbaugh say they are making lots of money – good for them. I’m trying to make lots of money too!

        Instead, we should call out those who are denying the very real effects of the economic recession while making lots of money. It is not the money that is the problem – it’s denying that the rest of America is hurting.

        And regarding the inauguration – again, the sheer size of the inaugurations should account for at least part of the difference in budget; not to mention the historic nature of the inauguration – as the first african american president it drew a lot of interest and attention.

        But EVEN IF, it cost lots of money, you did not address, in my opinion, the more important argument of begging the question – so if it’s OK for Limbaugh to make lots of money why attack Soros, Michelle Obama’s sneakers, or the inauguration?

        • Martin Knight

          So he does say ?these bad times? but combined with his comment about a ?supposed recession? it clearly shows that he is discounting the bad economic conditions many are facing.

          “Clearly?” Really?

          And if you were to combine “supposed recession” and his crack that he’s not “participating” then you get a guy humorously riffing it up on the success of his show even in “these bad times.” Completely Swiss-cheeses your argument, doesn’t it?

          Why is it that Lefties always assume that when one is talking about his success, he is denigrating those who are not doing so well? Is it because modern liberalism is an ideology is based on envy?

          Personally, I don’t think you’re here in good faith, but that’s neither here nor there. If you are though, then I must point out that you’re allowing yourself to be led by the nose by a bunch of mendacious bought-and-paid-for hacks who are excellent at editing quotes and cherry-picking against their targets.

          By the way, please cite for me the “mounting evidence” that homelessness among veterans is a function of their being veterans and that veterans were more likely to be homeless than non-vets – because that was what Limbaugh was challenging. After decades of pop-culture and the news media portraying the typical Vietnam Veteran as a homeless unemployable pathetic figure, it turned out it was a myth. i.e.

          Statistics indicate that compared with peers who did not serve, Vietnam veterans are:

          • More likely to have attended college.
          • More likely to be married.
          • Less likely to be unemployed.
          • No more or less likely to be imprisoned.

          By the way, “mounting evidence” would be stats showing that veterans are more likely to be homeless than non-vets, and that homelessness is actually rising in the veteran population. Limbaugh is certainly not denying that there are vets today who are homeless – that’ll be a straw man argument and I’m pretty certain you know it.

          It seems clear to me that Limbaugh, perhaps one of the few people getting raises in our economy right now, is both not sympathetic to the plight of millions of Americans losing their jobs and homes and blames them for their problems when clearly many people who did act responsibly have let go from their jobs.

          That would be a function of believing in ThinkProgress’ cherry-picking and your own ideological blinders. Again, I note that you’re using the word “clear” as if your version of reality actually is reality.

          Instead, we should call out those who are denying the very real effects of the economic recession while making lots of money. It is not the money that is the problem – it?s denying that the rest of America is hurting.

          Good luck with that. The only thing is that that short list of people would not include Rush Limbaugh. You may once again move the goalposts.

          But EVEN IF, it cost lots of money, you did not address, in my opinion, the more important argument of begging the question – so if it?s OK for Limbaugh to make lots of money why attack Soros, Michelle Obama?s sneakers, or the inauguration?

          Who is saying here that it is not okay for Soros to make money? Or for Michelle Obama to wear $540 sneakers, or for Barack Obama to spend at least 2.5 times the amount Bush spent on his own inauguration?

          What we’re highlighting is the double-standard and hypocrisy.

          The hacks at ThinkProgress, the NYT and countless Lefty groups were in print and on broadcast shrieking about Bush’s “extravagance” for his inauguration in 2004. ThinkProgress screamed about the money the McCain Campaign spent on clothes for Sarah Palin and her family during the campaign. And yes, ThinkProgress was among the same groups of shriekers when Limbaugh’s new contract was announced.

          Do you get it now? ThinkProgress has no problem with Soros making billions, Barack Obama having an inauguration costing over $100 million and Michelle Obama wearing $540 sneakers. All during a recession. But it sure did have a problem with Limbaugh making millions, Bush having a $40 million dollar inauguration and Sarah Palin and her family getting clothes that by law (win or lose) they had to return at the end of the campaign.

          • willingtoengage

            Apparently I have 100 words ? interesting standard but I?ll respond to over 500 words with 100.

            Good point on ?clearly?, I will try to avoid that term . Given what you said, though, it would appear you too agree that there can be a perception that Limbaugh is ?denigrating those who are not doing so well? You see it one way, I the other. IF he is denigrating, then there appears to be a difference between Limbaugh?s speech and the other examples you cite. Thanks for the link on the vets and the discussion – been helpful.

        • mom2oneson

          Rush has a GREAT point. There is money to me made all the time here. Some industries are always counter cyclical to the economy and booming. I felt encouraged. He knows how to survive he isn’t focused on the negative things and he is out doing something :)

  • Karina

    It wasn’t mostly private contributions which paid for that inauguration.

    “The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

    And then there is the party bill.

    “We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more,” said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.

    That’s more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush’s committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton’s first inaugural in 1993.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/Story?id=6665946&page=1

    Oops!

  • johnt

    after all, just how many conservative outlets do you have compared to leftist ones. The haters on the left can’t tolerate any dissent, even their punk president had to stupidly go after Rush. It bespeaks a deranged mind that total uniformity is demanded, needed by these stalinist freaks, deranged and extremely dangerous.