AJH

I think George has taken some hints from the Bill Clinton playbook, very carefully parsing his words. No conference calls with the White House? How about private one-on-one calls?

Now, I like Stephanopoulos and think he's done a respectable job (most of the time) while at ABC's This Week. But his bias and background are there influencing (and sometimes tainting) his efforts to be a true journalist.

AJH

AJH

“Conservatives become acceptable when they disparage conservatives.”

[T]he controversy demonstrates anew the validity of O'Sullivan's Law. [Named after John O'Sullivan, former aide to Margaret Thatcher and former editor of National Review.] According to O'Sullivan's Law, in American culture if one is not firmly conservative, one will fall prey to the liberals who dominate the culture, polluting it with their left-wing politics and creating what I call Kultursmog.

In the smog, various timid conservatives have allowed themselves to become instrumentalities of the Democrats' hoax.

Among these timid folk are Michael Steele and David Frum.

My favorite among the timid conservatives is this Kathleen Parker, a conservative columnist who apparently rose without a trace. Until this autumn, I never had heard of her, and to this day, about the only time one does hear of her is when she is puffing liberal gases into the Kultursmog. In the autumn, she was one of the conservatives sternly critical of Sen. John McCain for his choice of the pulchritudinous Sarah Palin as a running mate. Now she is equally stern in her criticism of the pulchritudinous Limbaugh.

 

Her presence in the mainstream media is another example of how the political culture works. Conservatives become acceptable when they disparage conservatives. Rush Limbaugh never has taken the coward's way out — and he is very amusing.

U.S. companies, consumers and communities may grow so addicted to government financial help that cutting them off could trigger another recession soon after the current one ends.

[T]here is increasing concern that when the flow of public money subsides -- beginning next year when much of that stimulus package is spent -- the economy still won't be strong enough to stand on its own.

"The stuttering attempts to repair the banking and lending mechanisms so far by the new administration suggests that by late 2010, the specter of a second dip into recession will be looming large," economist Sheryl King said.

The latest evidence came on Monday when insurer American International Group was awarded its third bailout. Each one has different terms.

AJH

In his campaign and inaugural address, Barack Obama cast himself as a moderate man seeking common ground with conservatives.

Yet, his budget calls for the radical restructuring of the U.S. economy, a sweeping redistribution of power and wealth to government and Democratic constituencies. It is a declaration of war on the Right.

Barack has no mandate for this.

Republicans are under no obligation to render bipartisan support to this statist coup d'etat. For what is going down is a leftist power grab that is anathema to their principles and philosophy.

We are not "headed down the road to socialism." We are there.

Who is going to pay for all this?

The president says he is gearing up for a fight on his budget.

Good. Let's give him one.

AJH

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned [he] was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters.

Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh.

The seeds were planted in October after Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling company run by Carville and Greenberg, included Limbaugh’s name in a survey and found that many Americans just don’t like him.

Paul Begala, a close friend of Carville, Greenberg and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, said they found Limbaugh’s overall ratings were even lower than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s controversial former pastor, and William Ayers, the domestic terrorist and Chicago resident.

“I could swear that opposing the expansion of big government is what conservatives do.”

Here we go again. Rush Limbaugh is public enemy No. 1.

Liberal bloggers and media chin-strokers are aghast at Limbaugh's statement that he hopes Barack Obama fails.

Well, given what Obama wants to do, I hope he fails too. Of course I want the financial crisis to end -- who doesn't? But Obama's agenda is much more audacious. Pretty much every major news outlet in the country has said as a matter of objective analysis that Obama wants to repeal the legacy of Ronald Reagan and remake the country as a European welfare state. And yet people are shocked that conservatives, Limbaugh included, want Obama to fail in this effort?

[S]ince when did hoping for the failure of ideological agendas you disagree with become unpatriotic? Liberals were hardly treasonous when they hoped for the failure of George W. Bush's Social Security privatization scheme.

Regardless, the war on Limbaugh from the left is a tired rehash. In 1995, Bill Clinton tried to blame the Oklahoma City bombing on Rush. In 2002, then-Sen. Tom Daschle, the leader of the Democratic opposition, claimed that Limbaugh's listeners weren't "satisfied just to listen."

Just because the Democrats' shtick is old and often dishonest doesn't mean it's tactically dumb.

The more interesting war on Limbaugh comes from the right. My National Review colleague John Derbyshire has written a thoughtful article for the American Conservative disparaging the "lowbrow conservatism" of talk radio. His brush is a bit too broad at times. Some right-wing talkers, such as Bill Bennett and Dennis Prager, can be almost professorial. Michael Savage, meanwhile, sounds like the orderlies are about to break through the barricaded studio door with sedatives in hand.

Bring back "Firing Line." William F. Buckley Jr., who died almost a year ago, hosted the program for PBS for 33 years. He performed an incalculable service at a time when conservatives were more associated with yahoos than they are today. He demonstrated that intellectual fluency and good manners weren't uniquely liberal qualities. More important, the "Firing Line" debates (models of decorum) demonstrated that conservatives were unafraid to examine their own assumptions or to battle liberal ones.

AJH

I was ... disturbed by Michael Steele's wretched performance. His initial reaction — that Rush's show is "incendiary" and "ugly" — revealed:

a) that he never listens to it;

b) that he takes his cues from the mainstream media, for whom Rush is invariably "angry". They don't listen either. Rush is a lot of things, but "angry" isn't one of them. If you catch him for 20 minutes, you know he's full of fun, laughing it up, having a grand old time. There are a lot of angry talkshow hosts out there bellowing at the world for three hours a day, but Rush isn't one of them.

This first reaction is disturbing for two reasons: first, given the size of Rush's audience, it's something a RNC chairman should not be so obviously foreign to; second, it's not encouraging when the de facto face of the party accepts so unthinkingly the liberal/media framing of the issue.

Then we come to Mr. Steele's second response - his reaction to the reaction to his original reaction: By apologizing for his first remarks, he opened the door for his DNC opposite number to make sport of the way he was kowtowing to the "ugly" Limbaugh.

In two brief soundbites, Mr. Steele has managed to suggest to his own party base that he has a lazy disposition that reflexively shares the liberal biases, and to allow the wider world to portray him as a craven squish. This is not encouraging. At the very minimum, he does not appear ready for primetime.

AJH

“Democratic Revolt May Slow Obama Agenda”

Although only a handful of moderate and conservative Democrats abandoned their leaders during party-line votes on the economic stimulus law, the group of vulnerable Democrats branded the omnibus spending bill as a budget buster and questioned whether the mortgage bill would raise interest rates on average home-owners and cause some struggling homeowners to rush to bankruptcy.

The defections could cause heartburn for Democratic leaders charged with ushering through Obama's three biggest priorities: a health care overhaul, a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions and his fiscal 2010 budget blueprint. The president might also have trouble winning their votes for an anticipated second financial bailout package.

"My job is not to be a rubber stamp for the president or Democratic leadership, but to be a voice for the people that elected me," Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona said. "I voted for the stimulus, but found I could not vote for the omnibus."

What would be amusing, were matters not so gravely serious today, is the utter juvenile transparency in the liberals' efforts to vilify Rush Limbaugh.

They've been doing it for 20 years, but this time, they're better-organized and have a broader purpose. So those who haven't had the courage to stand by him should understand that Rush is not the ultimate target here. We all are — those, that is, who oppose their Marxist agenda and Stalinist tactics.

Rush is the target because he represents the real opposition. He's the leading voice for those who are really standing up for America and its founding ideals. Too much of our opposition is nominal only. Too much of our opposition is unaware we're in a war for the very survival of those precious principles.

Memo to the feckless on the right: When Rush said he hopes Obama fails, his meaning was very clear. He believes the abundantly obvious truth that Obama is trying to restructure America in the image of the central planners and social nihilists.

Rush wants Obama to fail in his unabashed efforts to permanently turn this center-right nation radically toward the left. He does not want America to fail. Rush is unabashedly rooting for America. And anyone with the slightest ability or moral clarity to make mental distinctions understands this.

So those of you on the right who are refusing to defend Rush by making this obvious distinction better wake up.

It's time for you sycophants to understand who is trying to stand up for the America we believe in and that your sycophancy only enables those whose agenda cannot succeed without silencing the effective opposition.

Remember: To liberals, this isn't just about Rush — not even close. It's about you, me and anyone else who loves and defends those things — the Constitution, family values, the unique American culture, etc. — that make America unique.

It's time you represented the opposition, too, and directed your outrage at those who would use the full power of government to target individuals, whether they be Rush Limbaugh or Joe the Plumber.

AJH

AJH