Rush Is Not the Problem

I've stayed away from the Rush Limbaugh discussion since it seems the ultimate in Seinfeldian debates about nothing.

My overall sense is that the Frums and the Douthats of the world would be well served by staying away from this argument. As Ross himself has written, the grassroots needs elites -- and the elites need the grassroots. By trying to isolate Rush, the elites break down this elegant separation and veer into micromanaging the grassroots -- a losing proposition, particularly against a brand as sticky as Rush. By staging a power play against Rush, they also play into the Democrats' far-fetched notion that Rush is the GOP's leader -- an 11% proposition -- rather than letting him be as an entertainer and provocateur and popularizer of conservative ideas.

I missed Rush's CPAC address and watching it later on YouTube but was left wondering "What's the big f'ing deal here?" In content, the speech was no different than what Rush has been saying for the last 20 years. Why are we all reacting as if any of this is new? If Rush was going to damage the GOP, he would have done it by now. (In fact, the last time we had Rush in a situation like this, things didn't turn out so bad.)

It's one thing to reject spokespeople with neither egghead credentials nor talent, like Joe the Plumber, or those who are positively cringe-worthy, like Coulter. Rush belongs in neither of these categories. There is value in having provocative voices who know how to string two sentences together with arguments rooted in conservative ideas, not cultural pastiche. And though provocative and sometimes impolitic, Rush's arguments are usually calibrated and thought-out in their own way. Wanting Obama to fail from wrecking a country we all hope succeeds is not something a GOP politician should necessarily say, but is something Rush should be able to say from his perch outside the party. CPAC featured speakers who were still peddling the Obama-is-not-a-citizen nonsense to applause from the crowd. Let's distance ourselves those bumbling ignoramuses, not successful, well-honed voices like Rush.

3.5
Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (4 votes)

Comments

Thanks for saying this...

I think we have truely fogotten how to use the tools at our disposal!

yay hate radio!

seriously, the shmucks who thought up rush deserve to be shot.

You want class warfare? I think Rush has done more to degrade the general openness of discussion than anyone else, in terms of entertainers.

Not fair

Rush takes callers of all stripes on his show, and of all the conservative talkers is more than civil to them. I've never heard him ridicule a caller he disagrees with. He tries to persuade.

Not true of all the right talkers, to be sure, but on this point you can't knock him. He's built up an audience far beyond his own "ditto-heads," as a result.

apparently you weren't listening...

http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/01/another-best-call-ever/

This actually isn't the Vet on the line, it's his blog. ;-)

Did you catch the call about Dominican Sex Tourism?

http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/05/i-went-first-the-real-reaso...

how is that persuading, say?

http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/05/09/rush-shows-his-cowardly-ass/

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/7/183648/3841

man, my shoebox is filled with these clippings!

now, maybe you can say that some of those aren't exactly... about facts but about actions. but not all of them are like that.

It's been a while since I've listened to Rush (no car, for one thing), but it's rather easy to see that he's not exactly civil when you're calling him on his own bullshit.

The spiritual leader

Limbaugh doesn't run the party day to day, but he sets the agenda.  Republican office holders fear to contradict him.  It's as though nobody on the Democratic side could criticize Reverend Wright, for fear Wright's vindictive but popular national radio show.

If Republican politicians don't want Rush to be the "leader"

Might I suggest they do some leading themselves

 

if you can't even begin to

if you can't even begin to understand how Rush even might be a problem then I guess there is no need to worry about a resurgent Right.

Your are correct.  Rush is not the problem. Carry on.

Rush is only a Problem in the minds of the Left

Patrick is correct, of course. Last time Rush tried mobilizing the Conservative Base for a campaign was 1994. You all know how that turned out.

BTW, you did notice that Gibbs and the WH decided to back off a bit because they didn't want to waddle into the briar patch, didn't you? They're catching flak from the Commentariat that supported them last fall for attacking Straw Men, so they are tacking away from their Rush Offensive. 

It was a dumb thing to do and it increased Rush's market share and his affiliates' ability to charge for ads. To paraphrase George W. Bush, "Nice going, Barack!"

Look, liberals don't get the Republican Party and project on to it a lot of their fears and hatreds. Rush is a voice outside the Party, but he is not a Party leader. Begala and Gibbs saying so does not make it so. This is just a dumb, prankish move by a bunch of Democratic politicos who are trying to marginalize our party, and all it is going to do is energize our party going into off-year elections and 2010.

Jesus, are you liberals clueless, or what? The strategy was supposed to be to keep the conservatives dispersed and demoralized. When you attack us, our prominent figures, or our belief systems-that is when we come together and cohere!

Yeah, perhaps you guys will now come to the conclusion that you're not the effing geniuses that the News Media claims you are.  This whole episode just begs for a Downfall Parody video.

Along about late this year, our leadership-Palin, Jindal, Crist, Sanford, Huntsman, and Huck Finn, will start the Chicken Dinner circuit for the Congress Critters who are running to unseat vulnerable Blue Dogs and marginal Libs. Then you libs can start your beclowning. But this whole episode just made Rush a lot wealthier and gave him a much bigger platform.

There's intelligent, long-term political strategy, and then there's a bunch of smart guys in a room trying to be clever. This "Rush Offensive" was the latter. What a joke. Obama should go back to looking at himself in the mirror and ask himself what went wrong. 

Keep up with the polls

Rush repells women and independents. This dust-up is not about the people to listen to Rush, but those who don't. And its working. 27% of Independents now agree that Limbaugh is the head of the Republican party.

Great Post, Patrick.

Great post.  I agree with every point, from not acknowledging Rahm's strawman to rejecting Joe the Plumber and Ann Coulter.

Agree about Joe teh Plumber

What is he doing out in Public other than the fact that he hired a publicist? Jesus.

Coulter I like. Any woman with a mouth like her with legs like that can say anything she wants. Besides, the only people who read her column are CPAC people and the True Believers. She can stay in the closet as long as she wants. 

She really ripped Olbermann a new one, though. Exposed Bathtub Boy for the poseur that he actually is. 

Edward R. Murrow, indeed!

great post

Not a fan of Rush (some of his comments are indeed ugly and offensive) but his conservative principles and his beliefs are shared by many, and if the GOP uses him as a connection to the grassroots then there is no big deal with his existence. The rejection (finally) of Joe the Plumber is also a positive.

The only issue I take is that the strategy from the Dems wasnt that Rush existed, rather they were trying to make him the leader of the party. The GOP did itself no favors by having 3 or 4 officials apologize to him within 2 weeks of each other. That gave the public the impression that Rush is the leader, not a member. As Ironman noted, if they don't want Rush to be a leader, they should do some leading.

Tsk, Tsk, Pat

LiberalToddLuvsLounging says:

Oh, Pat, dems don't care that only 11% of republicans think Rushbo is their leader. Dems care that 27% of independents from the Ras poll believe Rushbo is the conservative's lead dog...and I believe the number is around 35% since Ras issue poll's are suspect IMHO. The higher the dems can drive the indy's numbers up, the better for dems since Rushbo's 'likey' numbers are crap among the indy's.

I'm not sure why the dems need to do this now and I do believe the dems are in danger of over-reaching and should save some Rushbo's toxic asset for 2010, but it looks like they can't help themselves. Have you noticed the gloating eyes whenever one of Obama's people mentioned Rush...they love it.

They don't need to do it - it is just happening

I'm not sure why the dems need to do this now and I do believe the dems are in danger of over-reaching.

This is something that the Republicans are doing to themselves, not something the Democrats are doing to the Republicans.

Recall that it all started with one throw-away line by the President and it has just snowballed from there. The only official fuel on the fire has been about 2 sentences from Rahm on Sunday and about three sentences from Gibbs.

The Democrats have had nothing at all to do with the parade of Republicans kissing Rush's ring and asking for his blessing.

But I agree with you totally on the poll numbers. To think that 11% of their own party could think that Rush is the leader of the Republicans is bad enough. (Could you ever imagine that many Democrats thinking Michael Moore or Jon Stewart was their leader?). However, the Republican Party is now small enough that the Democrats don't have to care about what it thinks - as you say, all they have to do is keep their eye on the Independents.

 

It's even worse...

Did y'all read the wording of Rasmussen's question:

"Agree or Disagree:  Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high.”

Rasmussen, by adding the, "He says jump and they say how high", portion of the statement, was clearly hoping that his respondents would answer in the negative.  I'll bet if he had simply asked, "Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP:  Agree of Disagree?", the agrees would have been much higher.

It's bad for the GOP that 11% of their members agreed with this statement.  It's devastating for them that 27% of independents polled agreed with that statement.  As noted on TPM the other day, that's basically the equivalent of agreeing that the GOP is Rush Limbaugh's beyotch.  And why wouldn't these people agree - the "Kneel before Zod!" moments that we saw from Gingrey and Steele, etc., are clear evidence that GOPers either kiss the ring or suffer the consequences.  Would Boehner and/or McConnell ever encourage their members to do something they know Rush would rip them for on the airwaves?  Of course not.  Hence, he rules their world.

they are doing it now because

they are doing it now because they are going for the jugular. they know the republican party is down and now they are in the process of putting a millstone around the party's neck.

obama gets to hold out the olive branch of bipartisan while knowing Rush will attack anyone who reaches for it. Dems get what they want. Rush gets what he wants and the Republican party contracts.

the first elected Republican to tell Rush where to stick his microphone becomes the leader of the Party and becomes a real problem for Obama.

agreed.

...

Forgot one important thing

"the first elected Republican to tell Rush where to stick his microphone..." and not apologize for it.... ;-)

This.

This.

Another one who seems to like his head in his nether regions

You said: It's one thing to reject spokespeople with neither egghead credentials nor talent, like Joe the Plumber, or those who are positively cringe-worthy, like Coulter. Rush belongs in neither of these categories.

Sorry but as a woman? I find his remarks regarding women and rape to be  cringe worthy and his desire for Obama to fail means I lose my home and my family loses their jobs along with everyone else in this country. Banks fail, hospitals close, schools close....and you don't find that thought cringe worthy? What? You live in some other country? or are you just simply blind? NO ONE is allowed to call Rush the magic blowhard on his comments. If they do? He goes after them on his little radio show.....they must toe the line for the obese drug addict and you find nothing wrong in that?????

Sorry I can't see your point of view but my education and inability to stick my head that far up my rear end renders me incapable.

This does matter

When you have head of the RNC (or party officials) getting involved in some weird way with Rush, then this is a problem. And worth getting into a tangle with. This isn't so much about Rush. He's a private citizen, making money how he knows how to make money. If you don't like his show, turn it off.

He doesn't lead the party, but he does carry weight. How does he get that currency? By republican giving it too him. Rush is a representative issue for what is going on in the Rep party. It's not Rush per se, but the style he represents. And he's not necessarily wrong, but he is offensive .  .  . to many people. And on purpose. It drives his show. And it drives many people in the party.

I think Rush is a smart guy, but he represents the ugly part of the Party. While things were good, people were willing to ignore him, but now that things aren't good, many conservatives are starting to put their foot down . . . not necessarilly against him, but the approach to politics he represents.

i'll be glad to see the culture war stop!

there's plenty of perspectives out there, we needn't square off about looking at the same page from opposite sides!

Right now,

Rush is the problem.

Right now, everyone in the Republican Party knows they're in a lethal squeeze between Rush and a hard place.

They know that acknowledging Rush's command to be true to Conservative values or else, to root for Obama's failure and hang the consequences, to obstruct, to deny the Dems any forward progress, to "stand on Conservative principles" will kill them at the polls in swing districts, just like it has the last two cycles.  And it will be turning solid, McCain/GOP +10 districts into swings.

Ask Santorum, Sununu, Hayworth, Tancredo, Hunter, Pryce, Tom Davis if their "Conservative principles" helped or hurt them with their moderates and independent voters in their states and districts who made the difference between winning and losing.

Right now, the Obama team has neatly placed them squarely on the spot:  Root for Rush, and root for America's President to fail and the hell with what happens after in America, or take a stand against Rush.  And so far, most of them are rooting for Rush Limbaugh, because they know he has a direct, mainline connection to the folks who write the checks; be they corporate, PAC, and/or roots folks.

That is a problem.

Democratic overreach?

Some seem to believe that the Democrats are going a bridge too far in stirring up the Rushbo hornet's nest. I'm sure they realized before this all began that there was the very small potential downside that the public would react negatively.

Did Begala, Carville, and Emanuel plan and execute this? Of course they did. But that doesn't make it a big scary nefarious conspiracy. These guys are pretty damn open about who they are and what they stand for. Ripping the GOP a new one on a daily basis is why they get up in the morning.

They probably focus grouped the public reaction to several dozen Obama statements, and the Rush comment jumped off the charts. So Rahm ran it out on the Sunday shows, and Gibbs reinforced it when the GOP took the bait. Since then, this whole thing has been a red on red crime spree, with the Democrats looking on in glee.

The gamble paid off. And the reason it was worth taking in the first place was the potential pay off is so high. This is not simply tit-for-tat politics. The Republicans are so badly wounded and rudderless that they actually are in very real danger of being destroyed as a political party.

With so many groups fighting each other for control of a party that is out of control, the Democrats don't have to do much except throw gasoline on the fires that are already burning. I would expect many more attempts by the Democrats to highlight Republicans against each other.

The new meme everyone seems to be selling is that Steele is kinda nutty, and maybe he needs to be removed. The Democrats would love nothing more than canning the brother to put yet another old pasty white man on TV as the Republican figurehead. Once again exploiting divisions that already existed. All the Dems have to do is concern troll on cable TV, and the GOP pulls out the long knives and start carving each other up.

Heck, it's the cheapest, best

Heck, it's the cheapest, best show in town.

Maybe Obaba should accept Limbaugh's invitation ...

"The new meme everyone seems to be selling is that Steele is kinda nutty, and maybe he needs to be removed. The Democrats would love nothing more than canning the brother to put yet another old pasty white man on TV as the Republican figurehead. Once again exploiting divisions that already existed. All the Dems have to do is concern troll on cable TV, and the GOP pulls out the long knives and start carving each other up."

 

Sounds like a surprisingly plausible scenario.

The likes of NRO Corner, RedState and Powerline are already busy posting anti-Steele stuff. Let's assume Steele decides enough is enough, announces his resignation while firing a parting shot at Rush, asking him to take the reins since he clearly has all the answers and none of the existing GOP leaders supposedly has what it takes....

Rush has also invited Obama to his show. As long as the performance is taped for television, I don't see much of a downside for the White House (particularly if he accepts right after Steele's resignation!). Obama gets a chance to show he is "willing to listen to the opposition" in true bipartisan fashion, and he tends to come off as calm and reasonable in this kind of setting.

 

MARCU$

The President shouldn't pal around with drug-using sex tourists

Two points:

For starters, the President shouldn't pal around with drug-addict sex tourists.

Next up, I seriously doubt whether this President is interested in rewarding the man who played "Barack the Magic Negro" on his show.

That said, if Obama were to appear side-by-side with Rush in a televised event, the visuals alone would cement it as a total victory for Obama, even before you start factoring in other matters.

One one side: an athletic, well-dressed courteous man with a picture-perfect family.

On the other side: an obese, thrice-divorced, drub-abusing sex tourist, with the clothes and the mentality of Tony Soprano.

Which of these two are the American voters going to identify with?

As someone else observed: fat, sweaty, rich, cigar-smoking, private-plane flying Rush is the emblem of the self-indugance that got America into its current dire condition. Obama is representative of the self-restraint that is needed to get us out of it.

Very thoughtful and to the point

Excellent analysis! 

Appearing with Rush would be

Appearing with Rush would be a disaster for Obama. Even the notion that the latter would agree is fantastical. Rush is in the same mold as Bill O'Reilly. The facts don't matter, only who shouts the loudest. Obama is constitutional law professor; all he knows is reasoned debate and preparation. He's best when he's had a chance to think through a position. In a knee-jerk, emotional debate with Rush, he'd be at his worst, and probably on the perpetual defensive. Were I Obama, I'd sooner attempt to reason with the business-end of a hammer.

Nevermind as well that Obama is the president of the free world, and should always be above this sort of fray. For all of Rush's bluster, his actual political power is a tiny fraction of Obama's. His passion is stirring up the "base," but he can't make GOP leaders (insofar as there are any) do anything. And of course, he has no executive power whatsoever. For Obama to legitimize Rush would be a massive political miscalculation. Even mentioning him in an offhand comment was entering a minefield.

I suspect the current rift in the GOP was not intended by either Rahm of Obama, but I'm sure they're both pleased it occurred. The more Republican infighting, the easier it is for the latter to pass initiatives.

 

Ready, set, go!

All your wishing in the world doesn't make this stuff true. It is obvious that most of you have swallowed the leftist line hook, line, and sinker about Conservative, Republicans, Rush, etc.

Explain to me specifically what it is that you find so objectionable about the Conservative goals of getting minimal government in our lives, cutting spending, cutting taxes, individual liberty, and greater freedom and opportunity for all? Likewise, explain to me specifically what it is that you find so endearing about a micromanaging government, increased spending, increased taxes, acceding to government your individuality, and less freedom and opportunity? Maybe then we can better understand about what you are complaining. My guess is that you are at best confusing current Democrats (who are more like 60's radicals), current Republicans (who are more 60's Democrats) with Conservatives (who are Reagan acolytes). The other possibility is that you're just willfully ill-informed or just incapable of critical, independent thought; but I want to give you a chance to defend your position.

Don't just tell me crap like, "Well Bush did this, or Rush said that." I want to know why you believe this stuff. Please present your evidence as well. I await your answers. Ready, set, go!

OK, I'll bite.

Explain to me specifically what it is that you find so objectionable about the Conservative goals of getting minimal government in our lives, cutting spending, cutting taxes, individual liberty, and greater freedom and opportunity for all?

What I find objectionable is, to paraphrase Mark Twain, you talk about these things but never do anything about them. Well, to be fair, Reagan and Bush did one of them - cut taxes. But all that did was increase budget deficits. As for the rest - bupkis.

The problem with

The problem with Conservatism's small government mantra is that, much like unicorns, it exists more as an fantasy than anything else.

I live in New York City.  My federal tax dollars flow South.  My state is a net payor of federal dollars. Sothern states are net receivers.  Talk about redistribution of wealth. You call us all liberals and then take our money because you don't have the tax base to actually pay for anything but that's okay. I get it.

Government dollars help us build cities in the desert. Pheonix, Los Angeles, Las Vegas etc. are not possible without federal money.

The greatest lie the Right tells itself is that is the party of rugged individuals who don't need government. Believe me I wish that was the case. Then richer states in the union would not have to perpetually keep carrying the poorer ones across the finish line. 

Please Conservatives. Demand that federal dollars only be given proportionally according to what those states paid in.  We can no longer support the Socialistic, oppressive redistribution of wealth from North to the South.

agreed

someone wrote to the WSJ and noted that of the 5 governors that planned on rejecting the stimulus money, only one (Texas) is a net payer state. The rest all get more from the government than they pay in. The don't need this bill because they get an annual stimulus package!

The class warfare argument gets even better because the wealthiest states are: CT, MD, NJ, HI, MA...all who generously decide to "spread the wealth" with the rest of the country, but you never hear any complaints about that.

I think you have underestimated your opposition here, Joe.

These leftist trolls have not only swallowed the leftist line hook, line, and sinker, but the rod & reel, and the latest edition of Field & Stream.

ex animo

Photobucket

davidfarrar

 

 

You posted a comment advocated violence against state employees

About half an hour ago you posted a comment advocated armed attacks on state workers. I think that pretty much says everything that needs to be said about the value of your contributions to political discourse.

No.

He was responding snarkily in kind to a hateful assertion by another unhinged leftist poster about "fundamentalist religious militias." My guess is that RisingTide wasn't referring to real ones like Islamofascists, but those that exist in the Left's anti-Christian alternate reality.

See this is what I mean by ignoring the sins of the Left, but accusing the Right of all kinds of imagined pathologies.

Leftists have this genetic disability where they find hypocrisy and irony everywhere that it doesn't exist, but an incapability to see it in themselves although it is embedded in and expressed by their own DNA -- like hair color.

and there you go! kuroneko will eat your hand now.

I do not think david was in snark mode. David is rarely in snark mode.[if I'm wrong, David, I apologize! please correct me1]

Islamofascist militias are a myth. In a country where Islam is the native religion, yes, the people who are outsiders will try to use it as part of their ideology and belief system. Nonetheless, it is not shariah law to stone 13 year olds for the crime of being raped. It is far more appropriate to call these folks thugs.

If I was to apply the same standard to America, I would end up calling many of the folks in Colorado Springs as Secessionist Religious Nutcases. And practically all of Utah is the same way (recent changes).

I actually admire the Christian religion. It's ... been more lawful good than some religions I could name, historically speaking.

Oh, and Do I need to speak about the crazy Jewish Nutballs? That's not particularly germane, of course, but in the interests of your throughly rotten and putrescent Political Correctness...

Eugenics much?

You deserve only my contempt.

/killfile

You are welcome to your opinion, as am I.

PhotobucketYour suggestion that the fasicts, fundamentalist religious militias are going to take over parts of this country, pretty much sums up everything that needs to be said about the value of your contribution to political discourse.

ex animo

Photobucket

davidfarrar

 

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

Thank you.

I, too, think that was a damn good repartee.

 

ex animo

Photobucket

davidfarrar

 

I appreciate this back and forth...

but enough with the animated gifs. Doesn't read well when you're making political arguments.

Don't encourage him

LoL, the more we plead with him to stop posting the silly gifs, the more he enjoys adding them.  He's a gif contrarian.  Let us accept the things we cannot change, have the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.  Trust me, this falls into the former category.

Heh...

That's the most hilarious analysis I've read on this site so far, David.  Well played! 

Patrick, it's great fun to see you weigh in on a topic in which I agree with you 100%. 

You guys have gotten my weekend off to a great start.  ;-)

Ah, come on guys...

lazy

...a little humor to lighten things up can't hurt that much.

 

ex animo

chris

davidfarrar

 

For those of you keeping score:

That's one for ill-informed.

Conservatives have never been in charge of the gov't (Pres. and both Houses of Congress) since Coolidge -- otherwise known as the Roaring 20's! Then the Progressive Republican Herbert Hoover took over, and  you know the rest. Well, maybe not.

Since, Reagan was our only conservative president since, but he had a liberal Congress. Despite this, all he did was bring the U.S. from the brink of economic collapse, rebuild the military, stopped Communist hegemony throughout the world, won the Cold War, and thrust the Soviet Empire to the ash heap of history, democratized easterm Europe, cut taxes, halted the increase in discretionary spending, and set in motion the longest greatest peace time expansion of prosperity and wealth creation. He did increase deficits to do it, but I would consider that money well spent and a real investment -- a bargain at any price -- in light of the above accomplishments.

Oh, and BTW, that deficit was erased by the only other nominally conservative Congress -- '95-'98 -- and gave us a surplus, cut spending, "ended welfare as we know it," and cut the welfare rolls by half in only 4 years despite a Democrat president that was ignoring foreign threats. This legacy of success is hardly "bupkis."

See, this is good! Now that you know that you were just ignorant of the facts and history, you can throw off your blinders and shackles and start on the road to recovery. Congratulations!

Next?

So, your entire case for conservatism

So, your entire case for conservatism rests on the fact that Reagan was in the White House when the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight?

What about the utter failings of the Bush Administration, which controlled all three branches of government?

Sheesh!

Yeah. That whole Reagan USSR thing was just one big coincidence.

Bush is not a Conservative and neither was the Congress for the 4 years that they had control. Please read before answering. Republican does not equal Conservative!

That's one for each of the 3 categories.

And that is why the conservatives mounted a primary challenge

to W in 2004. No wait, that didn't happen, did it. That is why conservatives mounted primary challenges to Republican members of Congress in 2002, 2004, 2006. No, wait, that didn't happen either, did it.

I guess I should add to my list of objections is the fact that it is impossible to tell who is a conservative. I mean, I distinctly remember the word being used A LOT in Bush's campaigns, but I can't recall conservatices objecting about that untill the shit hit the fan.

Exactly.

Exactly.

No, not exactly.

 Conservatives didn't mount a primary challenge to Bush because they placed a higher value on winning the War against Bin Laden and the War in Iraq.

Despite his reckless spending habit, and the corruption of the K Street Republicans, Conservatives were not going to break with Bush because of the overarching importance of the war against Jihadists.

This is something they rightly suspected that the Democrats would not pursue to victory, given the collapse of the will to fight of the Democratic Party after 2004. 

You Democrats don't get this because the pursuit of victory in this war is not important to you. Wealth redistribution, ideological eduction, and control of the means of production (defeating the Near Enemy before dealing with the Far Enemy) is what is important to you. 

The difference between you guys and the Eurosocialists is a question of degree, not of kind. And so it is with war. Nobody knows this better than the Jihadists, who know you for the weaklings that you are. 

One of the dirty little secrets of American politics is the glass jaw of the Democrats. Once American casualties in Iraq went above about, say, 500 men (which was the equivalent of a really bad day in Normandy in June of 1944, but that was back when the Democrats elected real men who could fight and win total war...), the center fell apart in the Democratic Party and the antiwar forces took hold. Obama's nomination actually became a foregone conclusion.

Obama's claim to better judgment is belied by his own withdrawal resolution, which would have left the field to the Al Qaeda and the Persians. In all likelihood, it was a scam resolution, designed to appeal to his gullible supporters (many of whom are Astroturfing here today). What history will write, however, is that Bush held his nerve in 2006 while the Democrats lost theirs and enabled Petraeus to win his war. Historians will savage the Democratic leadership for their shortsightedness.

Conservatives stayed with Bush on the war because they understood that the Democrats were pursuing a catastrophically bad strategy of defeatisme and appeasement of the Persians, and on a far larger scale, of the Chinese. They understood that the Democrats were reminiscent of the leadership of Laval, Petain, and Deladier of the French Third Republic. 

That's why conservatives bit their tongues on reckless spending. 

Oh, by the way. Nobody is fooled by Afghanistan, either. Obama is sending half the troops he needs to to fight the Afghan war (perhaps just enough to share the fate of Soviet 40th Army) and there is NO PLAN that we no of to deal with the source of the problem, the Northwestern Frontier States. So far, Obama is shaping up just like Lyndon Johnson, leaving the enemy with safe sanctuaries to plan attacks against Afghanistan and the United States.

Of course, to take down the Northwestern Frontier States and actually, you know, win the war (which won't be won in Afghanistan), you'd have to flood the zone with lots of men. 

Can't do that! Hopenchange. Hopenchange.

Obama's Afghanistan/ Iraq arguments were always so much misdirection and horse manure. You Astroturfers are going to hang your heads in shame someday for having bought into it.