Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Real Changes

1. Obama is economically more leftist/European than some dared hope.

2. The economy is much worse and will prove to be much more recalcitrant than most hoped.

3. There seems to be a Democratic/MSM conspiracy to focus on Rush and Newt are leaders of the opposition. I hope I’m not dissing these smart and eloquent men by saying that they’re old and white, have some questionable personal features, and seem to many to be yesterday’s news. More generally, the heightened MSM coverage of the CPAC conference was clearly meant to marginalize the impetus to oppose the president.

4. Romney is saying some good stuff about Obama’s Europeanization of the economy, and it’s worth discussing whether this observant believing, economically savvy, and personally admirable family man should be encouraged to take the lead. There are obviously arguments in the other direction, such as his inability to resonate...

5. The pressure is necessarily on Bobby Jindal and Eric Cantor. Bobby J was obviously overhandled the other night and needs to get back to his fast talking, policy wonkish, high IQ self.

Discussions - 9 Comments

Point #3 is noteworthy: By emphasizing silly stories (as currently on's home page about Obama being an alien), the MSM seeks to undermine serious opposition to Obama programs. Limbaugh can't take the place of a potential officeholder, so there is an asymmetry between him and the President, which is exactly why Obama singled out him (and Sean Hannity). Obama offers the classic sophist's choice: the pleasant versus the hard, the pastry chef versus the doctor. See the thread below on Limbaugh:

Your very language of MSM conspiracy sounds as old as the CPAC rhetoric. What is your evidence for the claim that the MSM coverage of CPAC was ‘clearly meant to marginalize opposition to the president’? Did you define the MSM as the major non-cable television networks, still in print newspapers, and various magazines? Which did you include, given that what is meant by the "MSM" is different even from what it was 6 years ago? Did you review all of these coverages? Finally, what evidence would go to suggest the intent to marginalize? Did you compare this coverage with the lavish coverage CPAC got from those same sources during the Bush years? When the MSM fails to give coverage to things like the Limbaugh speech, it is criticized as unfair; yet when it gives coverage, it is criticized as purposefully marginalizing opposition to the president. Not only was CPAC rhetoric sounding 15 years old, but your code words to disparage its coverage also sounds like it is 15 years old.

Some points,

1. I caught some of the coverage of CPAC on FOX NEWS' SPECIAL REPORT show (the one Brit Hume used to host). The coverage gave me a major freak show vibe. And FOX was probably kinder than alot of the other media outlets. Caught some of the speeches (by Limbaugh, Demint, McConnell, Bohner, and I wanna get to Gingrich and Romney). Nothing at all ecnouraging there. Don't get me wrong. The country could do alot worse than Demint as President (and is). Its just that I didn't see a viable alternative that the public will embrace.

2. Every consevative should listen to Gingrich, but bring a strong BS detector.

3. I would add Paul Ryan to Cantor and Jindal. I saw him make a case against the Obama budget that I think was much more effective to the marginal voter than Limbaugh's.

4. I'm stuck by the cynicism of many of my Obama supporting friends and aquantinces. They haven't turned on Obama, but they have this sense that huge quantities of government money are going to the irresponsible and especially the connencted. They don't blame Obama exactly but they have a general sense that they are getting screwed. Obama is desperate to deflect this sense by promising to hold CEOs accountable by making sure they don't redecorate their offices or something. It is a weak populist gesture but it will work if it is the only one going. And all of this before their taxes have even been raised. There is a huge oppurtunity for conservatives to sell the cap and trade policy as a tax on consumers that is a subusidy to connected businesses. The "green" they are getting is coming from you.

Peter, what is your personal beef with Gingrich? "[Y]esterday's news?" Gingrich? You can hardly count on one hand the number of smart, savvy and eloquent Republicans with a national voice, with the ability to garner headlines and move the debate. But for all what he can do for Conservativism, AND HAS DONE, you continually take swipes at the guy.

For what? For being divorced, when roughly one in three marriages suffer the same fate. For adultery? Is that so uncommon, so unheard of, was he supposed to be some kind of superman, wholly devoid of any lesser passions? Or are we Republicans such a pack of nerdy, stuffed shirts, that we can't tolerate the slightest flaw in a national leader? Or do you fault him for having an ego? A guy that capable OUGHT to have an ego, and it would be almost contrum naturum were he not to.

"[Q]uestionable personal features?" Well how many times are Republicans going to allow the Democrat/MSM Axis to brand a Republican persona non grata, and declare him, no matter how much his views jive with the mainstream, as marginal, and "out of the mainstream."

Democrats have Barney Frank on point in the bailout mess, a mess he very much created, {if a single creature could be fingered, that creature would have to be Barney Frank, a man COMPREHENSIVELY objectionable}. Yet there he is, lisp and all, running down our economy, and no one in the Democrat party deplores his "questionable personal features." When was the last time Democrats threw a national figure under the bus? Burris? He's not a national figure, he's a guy aspiring to get that lofty strata, so Democrats can afford to toss him over, {but if you noticed, very few have found the wherewithall to decry him}. The only reason Senator Torricelli of New Jersey got tossed was that Democrats lost faith he could hold his seat, and for that reason, and that reason alone, Clinton forced him to walk the political plank.

Recall during the Clinton tenure when every single newspaper in the country editorialized that for the good of thereof, he should step down, {the only two exceptions being The Times and The Washington Post}. But what did Clinton do, in the face of this unheard of political storm, ----------- he dared it, he defied it, he weathered it, and in the end, he publicly mocked it. And at the end o f it, he ultimately rallied the Democrats to him, and forced them, whether they would or no, to stand shoulder to shoulder with him, Starr Report, rampant disorders and all. And now, not too long afterwards, who among the Democrats would suggest that Clinton's "questionable personal features" debar him from speaking for the party.

What did Lincoln say when pressured to cashier Grant, and he was under enormous pressure to do so; he replied with a heated exasperation that "I can't spare this man, he fights!" Likewise, we can't spare Gingrich. Had the party stood by Gingrich during the Clinton years, our party would never have gone over the cliff, for Gingrich would never have allowed Bush to lead the GOP along that LBJ trajectory, of a feeble war effort coupled with runaway spending. BECAUSE WE ALLOWED the Democrats and the media to run Gingrich down like a pack of wolves, we now are in the midst of an economic storm that he would have been in the position to prevent, but was unable, because we allowed him to be removed. We put in his place an affable, corpulent Republican, who didn't have a fraction of Gingrich's knowledge, historical depth, political flair and political savvy.

There's no "conspiracy" to "focus" on Fat Bastard as "leader of the opposition". There's the fact that he is the leader of the opposition party, as shown by the fact that every member of the Republican Party who says something that Fat Bastard doesn't turns around to lick the sweat out of Fat Bastard's rolls the next day. There's the fact that Fat Bastard makes a deliberate effort to excommunicate all the people associated with the party that he doesn't like, and that his inquisition efforts are successful. There's the fact that Fat Bastard is treated as saint by Republicans - like on this website where someone once wrote that "the core of Rush's remarks were Platonic". Right. Basically, that fat fu*k is gonna be the face of your party for a long time to come, because if anyone doubts that old, sweaty, creepy, fat, angry, out-of-touch white men are what the Republican Party looks like - well, then, they've never seen the No Left Turns crew. The Pig is you: you are the pigs.

And if you don't like this kind of talk, that's just another way of showing that you only like it when it comes from other old, sweaty, creepy, fat, angry, out-of-touch white men. The Pig is you: you are the pigs.

the MSM seeks to undermine serious opposition to Obama programs. Limbaugh can't take the place of a potential officeholder, so there is an asymmetry between him and the President

Bullsh*t. Limbaugh is in a powerful position than any Republican office holder, because whereas Republican office holders fight amongst each other, any Republican office holder who says something Rush doesn't like is made to crawl back to lick the fat out of Rush's rolls the next day. Every single one. So the fat fu*k is a more powerful Republican than any Republican office holder.

The Pig is you: you are the pigs.

There's no "conspiracy" to "focus" on Fat Bastard as "leader of the opposition".

This is only true if you think that a "conspiracy" must be secret. Because the WH and the Dems in the media are very up front about the fact that they are working hand in glove. I suspect that if the media were acting as Bush's mouthpiece in this fashion you people would have something to say about the matter.

The conversations don’t begin with hello. They don’t end with goodbye. Most often they pick up with a low, drawling voice uttering something between a sentence and a grunt.


For those accustomed to hearing James Carville only when he is trying to enunciate more clearly for television, that translates to: "What's going on?"

So begins another morning in what may count as Washington’s longest-running conversation — a street-corner bull session between four old friends who suddenly find themselves standing once more at the busiest intersection of politics and media in Washington.

Carville calls White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel calls ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos.

A bit later, CNN commentator Paul Begala, who is not quite the early bird that his friends are, will complete the circle with a rapid set of calls to all three.

Yeah, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the MSM is happening to mimic the WH line on Limbaugh.

BTW, "fat bastard' sure is pretty funny.

So how is President Chimpy O'Teleprompter doing these days?

" I hope I’m not dissing these smart and eloquent men by saying that they’re old and white,"

No, Peter, but you did just diss smart and eloquent men.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2009/03/real-changes.php on line 651

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2009/03/real-changes.php on line 651