Monday, March 16, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Rush Limbaugh "I hope Obama fails"
Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:03 PM
Chicago Tribune Voice of the people
Gentlepeople:
Charles Madigan's Sunday, March 15 commentary "The business of Rush Limbaugh" starts "It all started with Limbaugh's hoping aloud that President Barack Obama fails."
And that claim started out with statements on Rush's Friday, January 16 radio show. An online transcript describes his receiving a request "from a major American print publication: 'Dear Rush: For the Obama Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent... commentators... to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency....'
Rush's on air comment: "The premise is, what is your 'hope.' My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people... who say, 'we've got to give him a chance.' Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000.... I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business... to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things.... "
"So I'm thinking of replying... 'Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails....
"I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.' Somebody's gotta say it."
Later in the article, Madigan explains that "Limbaugh should take every chance he can get to bash away at the Obama administration and hold onto his audience...." After reading the above transcript, does Madigan still believe "keeping his audience" is what drives Rush Limbaugh?
Madigan continues, describing Rush Limbaugh's "product" as "very conservative opinion. But he is not a William F. Buckley conservative...." Beyond his immediate family, Rush Limbaugh's most often referenced and quoted heroes are Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr. I never heard RWR or WFBJr say anything questionable about Rush, and I have heard Buckley speak very highly of Rush. There are a few writers on Buckley's magazine who recently have been less than flattering, but many more have come out in his strong defense. So Madigan's claim is no more than a wild guess.
But Madigan is full of wild guesses: "Limbaugh, perhaps the most successful broadcaster of the last two decades...."
Perhaps? Who is number two?
"Limbaugh's audience most likely trends toward an older demographic...."
"And who knows how many Limbaugh listeners are voters?"
No doubt about who people looking for something-for-nothing vote for.
"[A]ctual Republicans who have to carry the ball in Congress and in statehouses will never be able to keep up with [Rush's] rhetoric.
Rush often speaks on his show of his pride in a plaque naming him an honorary member of the 1995 Republican House of Representatives freshmen, thanking him for the help he gave them in taking over the House in 1994.
“Rush is ‘selling personality on air.’"
Since Obama brought not 5 minutes of executive, buck-stops-here experience to the office of president, what was he selling but "personality". At least Rush does it without a teleprompter.
Besides the title of this article, the word 'business' occurs 7 times, 5 referring to Rush Limbaugh. Would Mr. Madigan ever write about Barack Obama's business, which for his entire career has been applied 100% to getting out the vote for Democrat, left wing causes?
Madigan finally makes his major point, that "Limbaugh is about rhetoric, not reality...," which conveniently explains an earlier qualification that Madigan doesn't "listen to talk radio". If Madigan would listen to Rush Limbaugh for a couple hours some week, he would find 'rhetoric' is buried under tons of description and discussion of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the principles put forth by our founders to encourage private initiative, and keep the government out of it. The down side is that you would also hear lots of description of forces out to destroy all of this by convincing the public they cannot do anything by themselves, but must have the watchful eye, and constant intervention of 500 all-but-life-time elected public officials in DC, riding on the back of a vast bureaucracy they no longer control, beyond helping them stay in office.
After a murky opening paragraph that appeared to do little more than get him off the ground, Madigan closes with "Everyone involved [in the Limbaugh 'flap'] ... is motivated by self-interest." Maybe it would be easier to understand if Madigan could name a single person in the world who is not "motivated by self interest."
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL 60640773-677-3010
Chicago Tribune Voice of the people
Gentlepeople:
Charles Madigan's Sunday, March 15 commentary "The business of Rush Limbaugh" starts "It all started with Limbaugh's hoping aloud that President Barack Obama fails."
And that claim started out with statements on Rush's Friday, January 16 radio show. An online transcript describes his receiving a request "from a major American print publication: 'Dear Rush: For the Obama Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent... commentators... to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency....'
Rush's on air comment: "The premise is, what is your 'hope.' My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people... who say, 'we've got to give him a chance.' Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000.... I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business... to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things.... "
"So I'm thinking of replying... 'Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails....
"I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.' Somebody's gotta say it."
Later in the article, Madigan explains that "Limbaugh should take every chance he can get to bash away at the Obama administration and hold onto his audience...." After reading the above transcript, does Madigan still believe "keeping his audience" is what drives Rush Limbaugh?
Madigan continues, describing Rush Limbaugh's "product" as "very conservative opinion. But he is not a William F. Buckley conservative...." Beyond his immediate family, Rush Limbaugh's most often referenced and quoted heroes are Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr. I never heard RWR or WFBJr say anything questionable about Rush, and I have heard Buckley speak very highly of Rush. There are a few writers on Buckley's magazine who recently have been less than flattering, but many more have come out in his strong defense. So Madigan's claim is no more than a wild guess.
But Madigan is full of wild guesses: "Limbaugh, perhaps the most successful broadcaster of the last two decades...."
Perhaps? Who is number two?
"Limbaugh's audience most likely trends toward an older demographic...."
"And who knows how many Limbaugh listeners are voters?"
No doubt about who people looking for something-for-nothing vote for.
"[A]ctual Republicans who have to carry the ball in Congress and in statehouses will never be able to keep up with [Rush's] rhetoric.
Rush often speaks on his show of his pride in a plaque naming him an honorary member of the 1995 Republican House of Representatives freshmen, thanking him for the help he gave them in taking over the House in 1994.
“Rush is ‘selling personality on air.’"
Since Obama brought not 5 minutes of executive, buck-stops-here experience to the office of president, what was he selling but "personality". At least Rush does it without a teleprompter.
Besides the title of this article, the word 'business' occurs 7 times, 5 referring to Rush Limbaugh. Would Mr. Madigan ever write about Barack Obama's business, which for his entire career has been applied 100% to getting out the vote for Democrat, left wing causes?
Madigan finally makes his major point, that "Limbaugh is about rhetoric, not reality...," which conveniently explains an earlier qualification that Madigan doesn't "listen to talk radio". If Madigan would listen to Rush Limbaugh for a couple hours some week, he would find 'rhetoric' is buried under tons of description and discussion of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the principles put forth by our founders to encourage private initiative, and keep the government out of it. The down side is that you would also hear lots of description of forces out to destroy all of this by convincing the public they cannot do anything by themselves, but must have the watchful eye, and constant intervention of 500 all-but-life-time elected public officials in DC, riding on the back of a vast bureaucracy they no longer control, beyond helping them stay in office.
After a murky opening paragraph that appeared to do little more than get him off the ground, Madigan closes with "Everyone involved [in the Limbaugh 'flap'] ... is motivated by self-interest." Maybe it would be easier to understand if Madigan could name a single person in the world who is not "motivated by self interest."
Arnold H Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL 60640773-677-3010
Friday, March 13, 2009
Another wishy-washy Republican...
...gets a letter printed in the WSJ (March 12, 2009):
"Daniel Henninger ('Has Obama Buried Reagan?,' Wonder Land, March 5) has one thing right: Republicans had better start talking about economic growth. But first they have to stop dithering and consorting with buffoons like Rush Limbaugh or threatening to go beyond the cutting edge and get really hip-hop.
"Maybe then they can join the conversation about growth that's already underway in many quarters -- not just within the Obama administration, but also in the private sector, which, Mr. Henninger claims, is the Republicans' political bailiwick.
"Hoping that the ghost of Ronald Reagan will offer, again, a way out of the darkness is also just bad political strategy. Many young voters (most of whom were Obama voters this time around) were born during President Reagan's second term. To them, 'Ronald Reagan' sounds a bit like 'William McKinley.'
"Sticking to conservative principles shouldn't rule out coming up with new ideas."
I responded:
Chicago Friday AM, March 13, 2009
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
The letter "Can't Live in the Past" in the Thursday, March 12 Wall Street Journal suggests the Republicans "... join the conversation about [economic] growth that's already underway... not just within the Obama administration. ..."
How did that 'just' get in there? The administration told everyone what they would do if they won, and since they did, the economy as grown by -$3 trillion in the private sector stock market alone.
The letter further suggests the Republicans "...stop dithering and consorting with buffoons like Rush Limbaugh". In politics, if an ally seems less than helpful, what does your real opposition think? Rush Limbaugh has the Democrats so befuddled, Republicans are lucky he still prefers them to Democrats.
The letter-writer doesn't think "the ghost of Ronald Reagan will offer... a way out of the darkness". So what have we had since RWR that's better? Another Republican who was no Reagan, but did win two elections. Then there was the guy who ran because "it was his turn," who then ignored the greatest political legacy of the 20th century, the two-year-old Contract with America. Then there was that guy last fall, effectively nominated by Democrats because of some weired "new ideas" in the Republican nominating process.
But even picking a VP partner someone with demonstrable executive experience (in contrast to himself and the opposing ticket) couldn't save him from his own incompetence.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
"Daniel Henninger ('Has Obama Buried Reagan?,' Wonder Land, March 5) has one thing right: Republicans had better start talking about economic growth. But first they have to stop dithering and consorting with buffoons like Rush Limbaugh or threatening to go beyond the cutting edge and get really hip-hop.
"Maybe then they can join the conversation about growth that's already underway in many quarters -- not just within the Obama administration, but also in the private sector, which, Mr. Henninger claims, is the Republicans' political bailiwick.
"Hoping that the ghost of Ronald Reagan will offer, again, a way out of the darkness is also just bad political strategy. Many young voters (most of whom were Obama voters this time around) were born during President Reagan's second term. To them, 'Ronald Reagan' sounds a bit like 'William McKinley.'
"Sticking to conservative principles shouldn't rule out coming up with new ideas."
I responded:
Chicago Friday AM, March 13, 2009
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
The letter "Can't Live in the Past" in the Thursday, March 12 Wall Street Journal suggests the Republicans "... join the conversation about [economic] growth that's already underway... not just within the Obama administration. ..."
How did that 'just' get in there? The administration told everyone what they would do if they won, and since they did, the economy as grown by -$3 trillion in the private sector stock market alone.
The letter further suggests the Republicans "...stop dithering and consorting with buffoons like Rush Limbaugh". In politics, if an ally seems less than helpful, what does your real opposition think? Rush Limbaugh has the Democrats so befuddled, Republicans are lucky he still prefers them to Democrats.
The letter-writer doesn't think "the ghost of Ronald Reagan will offer... a way out of the darkness". So what have we had since RWR that's better? Another Republican who was no Reagan, but did win two elections. Then there was the guy who ran because "it was his turn," who then ignored the greatest political legacy of the 20th century, the two-year-old Contract with America. Then there was that guy last fall, effectively nominated by Democrats because of some weired "new ideas" in the Republican nominating process.
But even picking a VP partner someone with demonstrable executive experience (in contrast to himself and the opposing ticket) couldn't save him from his own incompetence.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The UK Financial Times is pretty good...
...when they talk about Bangkok, but they don't know beans about Rush Limbaugh:
Saturday, March 7, 2009 7:56 PM
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
The Financial Times Friday, March 6, article “Man in the News“ on Rush Limbaugh is interesting and well written. Granting that "his audience contains a large share of people with college degrees..." and "Democrats... would be rash to underestimate his ability..." is refreshingly fair, especially considering he didn't reply to your e-mailed questions.
But there are points that are absolutely wrong. Rush's nickname for "James Carville, a leading Democratic consultant" is not "Forehead”, but "The Serpent". The Forehead is Paul Begalla, a Democrat political strategist, and California Congress creature Henry Waxman is nostrilitis" (look at pics of those three and you will see, cruel they may be, the nicknames could not be more descriptive.)
And Mr Obama is not the “Supreme Leader” - he is the Messiah, a nickname not particularly liked by many on the right. Saving the "best" for last, Rush did not call John Edwards, the “Bret Girl”; but yes "in honour of a shampoo advertisement" called him the "Breck" girl. And “ditto heads” is not a "disparaging name" Rush gives to his audience, but an honored trademark (he calls his in-studio video camera "the ditto cam.") As he has explained many times, it comes from the early days of his national show, many callers did indeed compliment him, so much so that many more started off with "dittos to that last caller". Those compliments were often expressly qualified with "but I don't agree with every thing you say."
And I assume that you are quoting "moderate Republicans" when you say "Parties do not get elected by heading into the wilderness...." Did Ronald Reagan head into the wilderness? George W Bush was a little weaker there than RWR, but not near as deep in the wilderness as his two opponents. You want to see real 'wilderness'? Look at the results of George HW, Bob Dole, and John McCain.
As far as Rush's callers phoning in to agree with everything he says, I remember in the Teri Schiavo disaster, he came in on Monday AM and took 3 1/2 days of "Pull the plug", and it sounded like Sammy Sosa batting practice. Every one out of the park, until the last hour Thursday, when he finally took a caller who agreed with him.
Your statement that Rush talks "in a distinctive American conservative style – angry about white victimhood...." would only carry weight if you could quote a single instance of Rush talking about "white victimhood." A single example of any American Conservative saying that could only help your credibility also.
You object to Rush saying the Obama presidency would “lead ineluctably to 'socialism', 'socialised medicine' and other original sins." I've always understood that Socialism is public ownership of all means of production. Obama is well on his way to taking over the banks and the home mortgage industry. The investor class lost $2 trillion from Obama's election to his inauguration, another $trillion since then. How long will it take before Obama declares "the country is too big to fail," and nationalizes the entire economy because no one else wants it? And if taking management of the health care sector away from local doctors, hospitals, and common-stock-owned health insurance companies, and giving it entirely to Washington DC bureaucrats isn't "socialised medicine", what is?
Edward Luce is a fine writer, certainly deserving of a high place in FT's outstanding group of writers. But it's questionable how many Rush Limbaugh shows he's listened to, or how many listeners he's talked with.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Saturday, March 7, 2009 7:56 PM
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
The Financial Times Friday, March 6, article “Man in the News“ on Rush Limbaugh is interesting and well written. Granting that "his audience contains a large share of people with college degrees..." and "Democrats... would be rash to underestimate his ability..." is refreshingly fair, especially considering he didn't reply to your e-mailed questions.
But there are points that are absolutely wrong. Rush's nickname for "James Carville, a leading Democratic consultant" is not "Forehead”, but "The Serpent". The Forehead is Paul Begalla, a Democrat political strategist, and California Congress creature Henry Waxman is nostrilitis" (look at pics of those three and you will see, cruel they may be, the nicknames could not be more descriptive.)
And Mr Obama is not the “Supreme Leader” - he is the Messiah, a nickname not particularly liked by many on the right. Saving the "best" for last, Rush did not call John Edwards, the “Bret Girl”; but yes "in honour of a shampoo advertisement" called him the "Breck" girl. And “ditto heads” is not a "disparaging name" Rush gives to his audience, but an honored trademark (he calls his in-studio video camera "the ditto cam.") As he has explained many times, it comes from the early days of his national show, many callers did indeed compliment him, so much so that many more started off with "dittos to that last caller". Those compliments were often expressly qualified with "but I don't agree with every thing you say."
And I assume that you are quoting "moderate Republicans" when you say "Parties do not get elected by heading into the wilderness...." Did Ronald Reagan head into the wilderness? George W Bush was a little weaker there than RWR, but not near as deep in the wilderness as his two opponents. You want to see real 'wilderness'? Look at the results of George HW, Bob Dole, and John McCain.
As far as Rush's callers phoning in to agree with everything he says, I remember in the Teri Schiavo disaster, he came in on Monday AM and took 3 1/2 days of "Pull the plug", and it sounded like Sammy Sosa batting practice. Every one out of the park, until the last hour Thursday, when he finally took a caller who agreed with him.
Your statement that Rush talks "in a distinctive American conservative style – angry about white victimhood...." would only carry weight if you could quote a single instance of Rush talking about "white victimhood." A single example of any American Conservative saying that could only help your credibility also.
You object to Rush saying the Obama presidency would “lead ineluctably to 'socialism', 'socialised medicine' and other original sins." I've always understood that Socialism is public ownership of all means of production. Obama is well on his way to taking over the banks and the home mortgage industry. The investor class lost $2 trillion from Obama's election to his inauguration, another $trillion since then. How long will it take before Obama declares "the country is too big to fail," and nationalizes the entire economy because no one else wants it? And if taking management of the health care sector away from local doctors, hospitals, and common-stock-owned health insurance companies, and giving it entirely to Washington DC bureaucrats isn't "socialised medicine", what is?
Edward Luce is a fine writer, certainly deserving of a high place in FT's outstanding group of writers. But it's questionable how many Rush Limbaugh shows he's listened to, or how many listeners he's talked with.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Trib letter on Boul Mich bridge safety
Chicago Tuesday afternoon, December 2, 2008
Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune
Gentlepeople: Your Tuesday, December 2, article "Slippery when wet—but ever so pretty" makes excellent points about how the Michigan Avenue bridge can get dangerous in icy weather. But how safe is it on a bright, tourist-clogged summer day? A camera tugging visitor stands right next to the roadway to get a pic of his hosts standing at the rail with Wacker Drive and Trump Tower in the background. He wants a slightly better angle, so instinctively takes a backward step, but trips backwards over the ankle-high rail, the only thing separating him from speeding traffic. The photog could fall so quickly that even a motorist traveling at normal Michigan bridge speed would have no chance of stopping in time. The fact that it has apparently never happened could mean only that we've been very lucky.
Arnold H. Nelson Chicago 60640
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Does FT already have the 2009 journalistic poor tast award in the bag?Sunday, January 18, 2009 2:38 PM
From: "Arnold Nelson" To: "Financial Times"
Chicago Sunday PM January 18, 009
Editors, UK Financial Times :
Gentlepeople: Everyone has biases, no less newspapers, even the leading international newspaper. But is it to much to ask that the Financial Times try to show a little more control than you did with your way-to-crude Saturday, January 17, editorial cartoon depicting a startled-looking US President George W. Bush being kicked out of a way-to-large shoe by an even larger black foot. Have you ever actually examined George Bush's pre-presidential resume? Before being elected President he was elected, and reelected (by 2 to 1 vote margin) governor of the nation's second largest state (with a 1,000 mile international border.) Before that he was managing partner of a sports franchise for five years where franchises regularly have $75 million annual payrolls, and approach $1 billion sales prices; and before that was a combat-ready trained Air Force National Guard jet pilot.
Now compare the big black foot: he has never met a private sector payroll in his life (a Columbia U graduate without an 'emphasis' on economics.) His international experience is limited to four crucial pre-teen years slogging thru the mud of Indonesia (but yes, 'emphasis' on international relations at Columbia.) His government experience is 8 years as an Illinois state senator, a job requiring no more skills than a Chicago Bears third string jock strap attendant (but without the responsibility.) He was a non-tenure-tracked instructor of Constitutional Law at a major University, but rarely mentions the document, and even then rarely without pointing out supposed defects, ignoring its genius.
And oh! Did I mention he has no military experience?
Certainly many say Bush didn't do anything right, but he got those tax cuts through getting us out of a left-over Clinton recession and over the worst domestic attack in the nation's history. And he made the first honest effort at averting the inevitable Social Security civilization-destroying Ponzi Scheme, but a spineless Congress would not let him do it.
His administration went to Congress annually asking them to do something with the obvious Fannie/Freddie disaster, but again they would have none of reality.
The same many will say he took us into Iraq, but I'm sure FT has read the House-Senate Joint resolution of October 10, 2002 and its list of 22 statements supporting invading Iraq, passed by 2/3 majorities in both Congressional houses.
For sure no one know what a President Obama's legacy will be, but from all he has said, and even more important what his appointees and top supporters have said, here is a prediction: Soon after noon on Tuesday the new president will make the first buck-stops-here decision of his entire life. Then he will start his professed attempt to 'jump start' the economy with out-of-control deficit spending that will only make things worse. This will inevitably force the inspirational new leader to publicly announce: "Our country is too big to fail, so to prevent its failure, I have just signed an executive order making all US residents, legal and illegal alike, direct employees of the federal government. May the force be with us!"
And everyone will go along quietly, happily, because it feels good.
Arnold H Nelson Chicago IL 60640
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
