Chicago Sunday AM, March 22, 2009
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
The New York Times deserves as much commendation for their Friday, March 20, 2009 Editorial "Political Animal Behavior 101" as its subjects, Congressmen Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, and Peter Visclosky, Indiana Democrat, for their David-like attack on Congressional earmarks. But your closing comment "the best hope of ending this cynical influence trading is for the taxpayers to hear the full and shameful truth," well-meaning as it is, from past experience is not real encouraging.
The solution is found looking upstream, in this case at the 2009 Statistical Abstract of the United States, that says in 2007, 65.64% of the total federal income that year ($2.568 trillion) was 'withheld' by employers from employee paychecks. 'Withheld' is a euphamism for the entire amount coming into the feds as checks on employer bank accounts and immediately deposited to the US general fund, no better demonstrated than the fact that if any of those checks fail to arrive, it is the employer who goes to jail, never the employee.
The employers are not real happy with this, but 1) they don't have enough votes to complain, and 2) unlike the employee, they can pass it on to customers, which has worked just fine for 75 years of a regularly expanding national economy. So 535 people control 2/3 of the federal income that no one cares about, to the extent of needing to take it out of their personal accounts and send it in. Result: earmarks.
No number of editorials or letters to congress creatures has had any effect in the 66 years it has been going on. There is a way to fix this. Get 218 members of the House of Representatives and 60 Senators, and an agreeable president to sign it in to law, and change paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages... from "every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." to "every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...." Leave the tax calculation with the employer so that with the check they include a stern note telling the employee how much the feds are expecting him to send in within 30 days.
Would it be easy to do? Probably not all at once, but a good place for the "frog in boiling water' technique: over a three-month quarter convert the 0.1 percent of the population w/ names starting with 'x' to a new, real 'pay-as-you-go' system, add in a new letter every quarter for 26 quarters, thru the 20% of the population w/ names starting with M and S.
Would this be inefficient? Certainly for an insatiable federal bureaucracy, but instructive for a growing portion of the electorate, sending in sizable checks every month from their own bank accounts. Questions would arise: Is the federal level the best to run health care? Education? retirement? What did the founders think of this approach?
Apparently not much, since they not only didn't authorize it in the Constitution, but in fact wrote specifically prohibiting it. Little did they envision their add-on 'general welfare' clause being beaten within an inch of its life, finally threatening the very existence of the country.
Those 26 quarters would cover three elections of the House of Representatives, reelection of the entire Senate, and election of a president. People would be asking the candidates these questions, and voting on the answers. And congresscreatures would forget how to spell 'earmark', let alone use it. This is the only way the voters will ever understand "the full and shameful truth" of why congress throws money around. Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Obama on the Special Olympics
Chicago Saturday PM, March 21, 2009
Editors, Wall Street Journal Gentlepeople: What possible good do you see in wasting 243 words of the most valuable opinion space in Journalism on defending Obama from “getting lashed “ for another outrageous tongue slip that tells much more about him than the people he insulted ("Bowling Pins and Needles" editorial Saturday March 21, 2009.) Sure he apologized to everyone in sight, and I'm sure Special Olympians are no more immune to Obama worship than any other segment of the population. You say “Mr. Obama was clearly trying to make fun of himself.” That’s for sure, by clearly comparing himself to special Olympians.
Did you have similar WSJ editorials chastising the ‘political correctness police’ for their lashing of misspelling ‘potato’ and mispronouncing ‘nuclear,’ neither remotely demeaning anyone other than the speaker?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640
Editors, Wall Street Journal Gentlepeople: What possible good do you see in wasting 243 words of the most valuable opinion space in Journalism on defending Obama from “getting lashed “ for another outrageous tongue slip that tells much more about him than the people he insulted ("Bowling Pins and Needles" editorial Saturday March 21, 2009.) Sure he apologized to everyone in sight, and I'm sure Special Olympians are no more immune to Obama worship than any other segment of the population. You say “Mr. Obama was clearly trying to make fun of himself.” That’s for sure, by clearly comparing himself to special Olympians.
Did you have similar WSJ editorials chastising the ‘political correctness police’ for their lashing of misspelling ‘potato’ and mispronouncing ‘nuclear,’ neither remotely demeaning anyone other than the speaker?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 60640
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
If WSJ letters and op-eds ever bore you...
...try reading a news article.
Chicago Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:22 AM
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
The Wall Street Journal's Monday, March 16 article "Small Business Loans Criticized" starts out "President Barack Obama is set to release a plan Monday raising the federal guarantee on small-business loans up to 90%..." and ends "...but a study by Congress's watchdog agency contends that insufficient oversight is in place for that program." This is a 37 word euphamism for: The president's found another nail for the Republican Party's coffin, and Congress says make sure you've got enough bureaucrats to do it.
Continuing: "The Small Business Administration... lends to small businesses that can't otherwise get credit, such as ...from private banks." And, the Presdident's plan "... will increase that guarantee... temporarily eliminate many of the loan fees that help pay for the program and cover potential defaults. And Mr. Obama on Monday will instruct the government to purchase small-business loans bundled and sold on the secondary market."
But, wait a minute: "Government watchdogs fear the potential for another debacle, similar to... the mortgage crisis, in which poorly documented loans were granted by mortgage brokers, then shuffled off to banks and hedge funds as securities. "By eliminating the upfront fees for banks and lenders while increasing guarantee levels, watchdogs say, the administration could be creating incentives for banks to rush credit out the door....
"'According to the GAO investigation, I think we have nothing more than a large, unregulated pot of money that lenders are going to scramble to get their hands on,' said one congressional investigator...."
Are the ever-so-sly WSJ suits test-driving a potential satire subsidiary on us here?
Note to the President: A Rush Limbaugh-like brite idea: why not have Congress make a simple change to paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages..." to exclude employers meeting the present definition of constituients of the Small Business Administration.
Um, Mr. Presdident, you don't think much of this idea? And you doubt Congress, even the Republicans, will either, since it will reduce federal income?
The small business creature will still be reporting to the employee how much they owe the federal government. You don't have confidence with the backbone of the working populace following the law and paying their fair share?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Chicago Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:22 AM
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople:
The Wall Street Journal's Monday, March 16 article "Small Business Loans Criticized" starts out "President Barack Obama is set to release a plan Monday raising the federal guarantee on small-business loans up to 90%..." and ends "...but a study by Congress's watchdog agency contends that insufficient oversight is in place for that program." This is a 37 word euphamism for: The president's found another nail for the Republican Party's coffin, and Congress says make sure you've got enough bureaucrats to do it.
Continuing: "The Small Business Administration... lends to small businesses that can't otherwise get credit, such as ...from private banks." And, the Presdident's plan "... will increase that guarantee... temporarily eliminate many of the loan fees that help pay for the program and cover potential defaults. And Mr. Obama on Monday will instruct the government to purchase small-business loans bundled and sold on the secondary market."
But, wait a minute: "Government watchdogs fear the potential for another debacle, similar to... the mortgage crisis, in which poorly documented loans were granted by mortgage brokers, then shuffled off to banks and hedge funds as securities. "By eliminating the upfront fees for banks and lenders while increasing guarantee levels, watchdogs say, the administration could be creating incentives for banks to rush credit out the door....
"'According to the GAO investigation, I think we have nothing more than a large, unregulated pot of money that lenders are going to scramble to get their hands on,' said one congressional investigator...."
Are the ever-so-sly WSJ suits test-driving a potential satire subsidiary on us here?
Note to the President: A Rush Limbaugh-like brite idea: why not have Congress make a simple change to paragraph 3402 of United States Code Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages..." to exclude employers meeting the present definition of constituients of the Small Business Administration.
Um, Mr. Presdident, you don't think much of this idea? And you doubt Congress, even the Republicans, will either, since it will reduce federal income?
The small business creature will still be reporting to the employee how much they owe the federal government. You don't have confidence with the backbone of the working populace following the law and paying their fair share?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
