The newly-minted president took some shots at congressional Republicans Friday. When they expressed their concerns about his stimulus package, he basically told them what they could do to themselves. In not so many words, the messiah/president told them to perform an act which is socially unacceptable and physically impossible.
Then Professor Obama proceeded to lecture the rebel scum, advising them that they should stop listening to conservative talk radio if they know what’s good for them. Apparently it’s the Chicago Way or the highway if the other party wants to play with Democrats and his administration:
“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.”
Confirming that the president actually made such an audacious remark, a White House official explained that The Great Unifier was just trying trying to make a point:
“There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats. We shouldn’t let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done.”
But unity, as defined by The Bamperor, obviously means Republicans should just STFU and let the Democrats push the republic Mr. Franklin and his colleagues founded over a cliff.
Obama was apparently stung by comments the Maha Rushdie made this week when he was interviewed by Fox’s Sean Hannity:
“I only know what he has said he’s going to do based — and what he has done and how he’s voted, and in terms of what I would use to define the greatness of the country, he’s not it.”
When asked by Hannity if he wanted Obama to succeed, Rush replied:
If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it’s over, Sean. We’re never going to roll that back. That’s the end of America as we have known it because that’s then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided.
Why would I want that to succeed? I don’t believe in that. I know that’s not how this country is going to be great in the future, it’s not what made this country great.
So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?
Throughout the campaign, Obama demonstrated that he’s thin-skinned. This is a man, unlike his predecessor, who doesn’t take criticism in stride. Conservative talkers, especially Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, bother the new president to the point that he is driven to mock them in public. Now The Bamperor presumes to dictate to elected representatives of the people what their radio listening habits should be.
Just a few days into his term, President Obama has already angered congressional Republican leaders by treating them with condescension, and now he has allowed the country’s top conservative radio talk show host to drag him into what Matt Drudge is calling a “media war.”
If this is “Media Wars: The Bampire Strikes Back,” will the Fairness Doctrine be it’s Death Star? Candidate Obama said he opposed reinstating the FD, but he’s not exactly proven himself to be a man of his word.
When it comes to dealing with that small sector of the media which has been less than worshipful of The Bamperor, the Obama record has not been encouraging to those who value the first amendment. During the campaign, Senator Bamatine tried to shut down a radio program where his radical associations were discussed, pressured television stations to drop an NRA ad which was critical of his record on firearms and threatened TV stations which ran a 527 group’s ad which linked him to terrorist William Ayers. Is it just me, or does any one else see a creepy pattern developing here? What does it say about a politician when he and his supporters try to silence their critics than argue with them?
Julius Genachowski, Obama’s technology advisor, is likely to be his nominee for the chairmanship of the FCC. Genachowski’s position on the Fairness Doctrine is… unknown. Some powerful Democrats, including Chuck Shumer, Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein, are just itching to bring it back. If such legislation reaches President Obama’s desk, he has three options, and two of them are not good for conservative talk radio. If Obama throws his opposition to the FD under the bus, his Media Wars will quickly morph into Media Apocalypse Now.
- JP
Can someone help me out here on this?
leftylurker Saturday, January 24th at 9:46AM EST (link)I just read the original “fairness” doctrine decision, Red Lion v. FCC, but that ruling seems limited to cases of personal attacks, not to mandating Rush talk positively about Pelosi…
Any lawyers out there who do conlaw? How is this not a prior restraint on speech?
If you ever listened to Rush, you would know that most of his show is telling the truth about Democrats and liberals.
gekster Saturday, January 24th at 1:16PM EST (link)And the fact that if you tell the truth about a Democrat or liberal, they see that as an attack.
The Obama/Bill Ayers thing comes to mind.
So basically you would be shutting down about 75% to 85%
of his show.
A political party cannot be all things to all people.
It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
Ronald Reagan
Every deer hunter in Michigan still likes to take a shot at a squirrel, rabbit, or even a troll every now and then.
It's the "both sides" thing that's the problem, lefty
Neil Stevens Saturday, January 24th at 1:46PM EST (link)Rush’s show is three hours long. Radio stations that run him frequently run vaguely right wing guys for hours before and/or after his show.
But Air America proved that left-wing radio fails. If stations have to run an hour of left wing diarrhea responding point by point for every hour of the right wing standards, then they may have financial problems and have to start pulling right wing talkers.
Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis
good question. i think the fairness doctrine would be
icbm Saturday, January 24th at 3:18PM EST (link)overturned by the Supreme Court - at least as the Court is currently constituted.
and even if we lose one conservative justice, there’s still a chance because breyer is not terribly sympathetic to the liberal version of the first amendment.
but if we lose two conservative justices, it’s definitely all over.
In other words...
Hammer2008 Saturday, January 24th at 10:10AM EST (link)Public dissent and our Constitution’s 1st amendment should not get in the way of “progress”(ive) politics?
(sigh) Time to enjoy some family Y time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Too much noise! “Noise! You’ll have noise enough before long. The Regulars are coming out.” ~ Paul Revere (April 18th, 1775’s eve…)
The Republicans have a clear choice
Jack_Savage Saturday, January 24th at 10:58AM EST (link)Either STFU and assimilate, because resistance is futile, or fight.
The really sad thing is I honestly don’t know which road they are going to choose.
I know what road this Republican is going to choose
1SGinTN Saturday, January 24th at 11:08AM EST (link)And I know which Republicans I will support with donations and vote for in the primaries - those who fight.
Tu Ne Cede Malis
-Virgil
SAY IT AGAIN!!!!
barry915barry Saturday, January 24th at 11:47AM EST (link)Say it again, brother, say it again!. Say it LOUD, say it PROUD! Shout it from the mountain tops!. We’re gonna roll this conservative truckin’ convoy ‘cross the USA!. CAN I GET AN AMEN OUT THERE?
i think what we'll see, jack, is that, for the first
icbm Saturday, January 24th at 3:24PM EST (link)several months, while obama’s popularity is at its height, a number of republicans will go along with obama’s initiatives because
1. it’s a long way until the next congressional election and
2. his initiatives will pay them off with federal funds to their locality
after maybe 3-6 months - probably more like 6 months - republicans may start to group together more and start speaking up.
i hope they start standing up for principle right away, but when the majority is against you and it’s just after an election, the strong human tendency is to blow with the wind.
I am afraid you are exactly right
Jack_Savage Saturday, January 24th at 3:34PM EST (link)To dissent now would take courage, which has been in very short supply among elected Republicans for some time now.
We all know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If I were an elected Republican, I would look around and observe that there is nothing much to lose through strong and principled opposition. I would also try and understand that the people who are with me now certainly won’t go away if I stand and fight, and might actually be made stronger. I would also take this opportunity to determine who was with me and who wasn’t on my own side, and act accordingly.
Sometimes being backed into a corner brings clarity and courage. Sometimes it brings cowardice. We’ll see what it brings Republicans.
i would do the same thing as you
icbm Saturday, January 24th at 3:53PM EST (link)but, unfortunately, sometimes there is plenty to lose through strong and principled opposition - for instance, if the stimulus proves popular in the long run. i think it will not prove popular in the long term, but if it does, then those who stood against it will take heat for it, especially at the next election (unless they’re lucky enough to be from a 90% conservative district in oklahoma).
i don’t excuse what they’re doing - i also call it cowardice, as you do.
Can't stand criticism
ss396 Saturday, January 24th at 11:18AM EST (link)He has never had to stand firmly by anything that he has ever said or done. And when his squishiness is remarked, he gets all testy and defensive.
Just wait until he is compelled to make a substantial decision; one that cannot be ignored, and that he cannot duck or deflect to Congress: one that finally brings him starkly face-to-face with the full implication of the definition of “loneliness of command”. This is turf that he’s not trod, and I fear what will happen when he does.
If you pay people to sit on their duffs, you cannot be surprised when they do.
Excellent analysis
Jack_Savage Saturday, January 24th at 11:19AM EST (link)And the country will soon learn that they have elected a child to the office of the President.
but we better prepare for a clever president
icbm Saturday, January 24th at 11:35AM EST (link)he may be a child, and may behave like a child, and, if so, it will be easier to defeat his policies and then him in 2012.
but there are signs that, despite his inexperience and inability to come to a decision sometimes, he may be quite clever - and that is much more to be feared. remember how often clinton outfoxed republicans.
i’d prepare for the worst (and hopefully be pleasantly surprised when he’s not as capable as anticipated.)
Here's the way I look at it, icbm
Jack_Savage Saturday, January 24th at 2:53PM EST (link)He has had rose petals thrown down his path for his entire life, and now he is actually running into people who do not worship the ground he walks on. It reminds me of the upper middle and upper class kids who think the sun revolves around them and are unable to handle it when they discover it doesn’t.
There was a guy I used to play tennis with who was pretty good. He beat most everyone he played, but he couldn’t beat me - and I am simply not te best tennis player. When he lost to me, he was a complete jerk. He was sure he was better than me (and he was), and he couldn’t understand why he was losing. The more frustrated he became, the more I taunted him, until he completely self-destructed.
I believe Obama has many, if not all, of the characteristics of my tennis opponent, and it won’t be long until the wheels come off IMO.
yes, you may be right. he has a lot to learn about
icbm Saturday, January 24th at 3:30PM EST (link)taking criticism, and he may refuse to learn it, choosing instead to become more and more brittle.
still, he’s a daring fellow, willing to make surprising - and effective - moves. (e.g., breaking his promises on NAFTA and public financing, flipping his position on the Heller case, and even softening his position on Iraq - all in the course of one month at the start of the summer. Very bold, and very effective, to make his dash to the center as quick and as early as possible. No other candidate during 2008 would have tried such a thing. It helped that the media covered for him largely, but it was still risky - and savvy.)
so i’m not really disagreeing with you. i’m simply saying - let’s be prepared for both scenarios. the democrats always behaved as if pres. bush was a dummy, but he wasn’t, and it cost them over and over.
Paralysis
ss396 Saturday, January 24th at 8:56PM EST (link)My fear is not so much from his actions; it is centered more around the prospect of his inaction. Yes, he is surely clever and is, indeed, a very smart man. But this site has done an extensive job cataloging the positions that he has abandoned, and the people whom he has “thrown under the bus.” When he got cornered during the campaign(ing) he would blame his staff. That’s the kind of thing one can do as a legislator. But he is no longer a legislator. Even as an executive (that is, chief executive for his campaign) he went to great lengths to avoid accepting responsibility for the errors, preferring to obfuscate and deflect.
As President, that option is no longer available. There is a lot that he can push off onto Congress, and the Presidency is likely to cede a great deal of its authority to Congress under the Obama administration because of that. But when confronted with a crisis that is wholly within the Executive branch, he cannot avoid having to make a decision, take a position, and stand by the results. Furthermore, these results will have consequences, and mistakes may have to be paid for in blood. Every head of state faces this, but I am not convinced that he has the courage to do so.
I’m thinking, for example, of something along the nature of Russia deciding to carve out and annex a piece of The Ukraine. Or simultaneous rocket launches by terrorists against lesser-defended US Consulates. Or the continued slow-motion implosion of the European economies with the attendant riots spreading to our shores. These scenarios are for the Executive to deal with; not the Legislature.
What will he do? In my estimation he will try very hard to do nothing. He will dither; he will consult; he will speak grand, mellifluous words; he will get very busy at other things. But he will not confront the issue head on - and that indecisiveness will launch an era of agony. The US withdrawal from world affairs in the aftermath of Viet Nam was a principle driver behind the Soviet adventurism in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, in Grenada, in Angola. The failure to rescue our diplomatic hostages from the Iranians, giving up on them after a single, botched attempt, empowered the Middle East to become the unstable, nearly uncontainable threat that has so far cost us over 4,200 deaths, $600-billion, and has profoundly and needlessly complicated our foreign relations, even among our allies.
I have not seen a demonstration of his mettle. Or, more appallingly, perhaps I have. I greatly fear the damage to this nation that his weakness of character can render.
If you pay people to sit on their duffs, you cannot be surprised when they do.
i agree. i fear this quality of obama's will be disastrous
icbm Saturday, January 24th at 9:00PM EST (link)in foreign policy.
i try not to think about it. it is a real and very great danger - which you describe well.
That didn't take long
johnCV Saturday, January 24th at 11:31AM EST (link)for his fscist tendancies to emerge. Coupled with the power-intoxicated ‘leadrship’ in congress, I suspect that we will see a avalanche of draconian laws/edicts come raining down soon.
They will include ammunition/gun bans, micro-managing purchases of energy related items (based on saving us from global whatever), food related edicts preserving us from ‘poor’ nutrional choices, and coercion into some sort of ‘volunteer’ communitry service.
This will be coupled with a steady erosion of actual news which will be supplanted with pure propganda aided and abetted by the media (it’s started already with the WH press corps). To ensure the ‘truth’ is what we are told, expect to see the Fairness Doctrine re-instated with new provisions for internet compliance.
Liberal Fascism is for your own good. But hey, we got mccain watching our backs…
"a government that wants to hug you
icbm Saturday, January 24th at 11:36AM EST (link)can still be fascist if you don’t want to be hugged.”
as jonah goldberg said at a talk
What happened to "No means No!"?
johnCV Saturday, January 24th at 11:42AM EST (link)Apparently doesn’t apply to democrats (especially Teddy the Hutt and BJ Clinton).
heh. good question.
icbm Saturday, January 24th at 2:47PM EST (link)(teddy the hut. ha.)
Why do I get the creepy feeling...
antisocial Saturday, January 24th at 11:47AM EST (link)Dear Leader…. North Korea. Chairman Mao…
No you can’t - Moe Lane
——————————
The Emperor has no clothes!!!
——————————
Republicans who lost the Crap-and-Raid fight in the House -
Mary Bomo Mac (CA-45)
Mike Castle (DE)
Mark Kirk (IL-10)
Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Chris Smith (NJ-04)
Leonard Lance (NJ-07)
John M. McHugh (NY-23)
Dave Reichert (WA-08)
Rush's Options
casel21 Saturday, January 24th at 1:00PM EST (link)I think Rush’s reaction to the Harry Reid “phony soldier” letter points to the tactic Rush and his legal team would take — inverse condemnation.
Inverse condemnation occurs when the government takes ones property without just compensation. In my view, there would also be a claim for impairment of contract.
When the phony soldier incident occurred, Rush kept on expressing how the Reid letter was an attempt to ruin Rush’s business. Finally, a caller expressly raised the issue and Rush jokingly told him to shut up as that was the plan.
I don’t understand why these two claims are not used more frequently. For example, if I ran an eating establishment and they outlawed trans fats.
There are distinct advantages to these claims. First, the government cannot claim some kind of immunity. Second, the federal government is bound by state property laws. Third, damages are easier to prove: if Rush has a 5-year contract for 500 million and the feds put him out of business, the taxpayers are going to have to pay Rush that money. It’s not a bailout — they took away his livelihood.
The takings clause in the Constitution applies to property rights, not contractural rights
JSobieski Saturday, January 24th at 1:40PM EST (link)The goernment has no obligation to reimburse someone for a contract right.
Second, for even a property right to require reimbursement, it has to pass certain requjirements.
The high water mark for a takings lawsuit was a city requirement that all apartments be wired for cable TV.
contractual rights
casel21 Saturday, January 24th at 2:01PM EST (link)“The goernment has no obligation to reimburse someone for a contract right.”
Maybe they don’t have to reimburse them but the law would violate the Constitution as a “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” I think this argument was successfully raised in the S&L crisis. If the feds alter the provisions of a mortgage contract, e.g., suspend payments or prohibit foreclosures, I think we’d hear a lot about impairing contracts.
“Second, for even a property right to require reimbursement, it has to pass certain requjirements.”
Correct. “Certain requirements” is state law defining what is or is not property.
No, the magnitude the takings is what I was referring to
JSobieski Sunday, January 25th at 1:41AM EST (link)Unfortunately the government has been able to enforce laws like the endangered species act to essentially render land useless without being forced to compensate the owners.
I am not arguing that it is right, I am merely arguing that it is the current state of the law.
Bottom line: Takings cases reached their high water mark in the cable TV case I referred to above
My little voice repeats: No Bipartisan Support
Alberta Saturday, January 24th at 2:05PM EST (link)Any GOP elected official who votes for the trojan horse stimulus package should be kicked out of the party, period. If you have been watching CNBC for instance, they have Dems on all the time alluding to, already, the fact that the stimulus is bipartisan, ie not the Democrats fault.
Not one single vote.
Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.
Abraham Lincoln
Kudlow Called Dem Stimulus Plan "Goofy"
Spartan4Life Saturday, January 24th at 4:02PM EST (link)Thought that got it exactly right.
There is not one stimulative thing about this plan. Just a bunch of warmed over big government goo and transfer payments. Any Republican that votes for this monstrosity ought to be figuratively shot. I am not so sure that the GOP Senators don’t need to expend what little political capital they have to actually block this thing. I think the American people will see this silly plan for what it is.
In reality
Rapunzel46 Saturday, January 24th at 4:23PM EST (link)Isn’t his not so-veiled threat to the GOP yesterday how Daley has managed to tamp the Illinois GOP into a do-nothing, see-nothing, party that walks alone in the wilderness?