posted
First off I want to express that, much like the censure of Moveon.org, I think this whole escapade to condemn Rush on the senate is utterly a waste of time and resources.
You have probably read that Rush implied that troops opposed to the war are not real troops. It is causing a lot of hullabaloo on the web, Fox News, and Talk radio. Rush and his supporters are claiming his words were taking out of context in an effort to smear him, and every one else sees a hypocrite.
Here is the exact quote from the above URL that is causing this storm.
quote:The offense came up when a caller named Mike, who said he is currently serving in the Army, described his anger about talk of a pull-out from Iraq. Limbaugh readily agrees, according to the recorded exchange:
CALLER 2 (Mike): ...What's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
Limbaugh has since said on his show that he was referring only to one soldier: disgraced, convicted former Army soldier-turned-antiwar-activist Jesse Macbeth. Macbeth falsely claimed to have participated in war crimes in Iraq and received a Purple Heart, but in reality, he was discharged after only 44 days of service, never placing a foot in Iraq...
The problem with the exchange, say critics, is that Limbaugh refers to multiple "soldiers." He gets to a conversation about Macbeth about two minutes after referring to "phony soldiers." In subsequent radio shows, Limbaugh attempted to clarify his position, but muddied the waters by editing out a portion of it, prompting outrage from the liberal media watchdog Media Matters, which has been driving this latest controversy.
I listen to Rush. I don't like Rush anymore. I used to think he was funny, but....ehh, I am not currently a fan. I do think that I have listened enough to Rush to understand the subtext of his comments, and I believe the media is missing the major motivation of Rush's comments.
Rush is a cheerleader for war. The current republican majority (Let's hope Ron Paul can change this in the conservative psyche) equates support of the military with support of the war, and Rush has been VERY supportive of the military.
I do not believe he was calling current serving soldiers who oppose the war as being "Fake Soldiers." I believe his is doing something much more insidious.
I believe Rush (and all of the other major Conservative media like Hannity on Radio and Fox news) is trying to program into their audience that there is NO MILITARY that objects to the war, so any republican/conservative who calls in and attempts to discredit the war can be dismissed as a "fake."
Liberals want to loose--they are cut and runners. Only republicans want to win the war. It is a common theme I hear. The Dems/Libs hate the war, hate the military, and are invested in defeat.
You don't have to listen to Rush, Hannity, or Levin for very long before you hear that motif.
Anyone who opposes the war and claims to be a republican is lying. They are a fake.
No, Rush is not condemning soldiers who disagree with him; he is implying that such a phenomenon can't possibly exist.
This attitude in the Republican party is the first issue that got me interested in Dr. Paul. There is finally a republican who can intelligently argue against the war, who doesn't buy in to the party programming, and still has a consistent republican message and voting record.
This is why you will NEVER hear on Rush, Hannity, or LeVin that Ron Paul has received more donations from people in the military then any other candidate--republican and democrat.
However, I fear Rush has damaged our party too much and we will loose. Murdoch's crew will make sure the focus of Rush's comments will be on the straw-man that he was calling current soldiers fake. That is easily disputed and the democrats won't gain any ground on this.
posted
At first I thought this would be a post complaining about how Rush's comment was taken out of context. Then I thought "Wow, I was dead wrong." Then I realized that I was right
While I do find some of the stereotypes about Democrats disturbing (obligatory remark about how the same is true for Republicans here), I think that the only people who buy into them at this point are those whose opinions are not going to be changed anyways. I doubt that any of the current independents are going to buy into the "Democrats hate the soldiers" philosophy. In other words, I agree that it's terrible propaganda but I don't think it's very effective.
On a different note, I must admit that I have to give Rush the benefit of the doubt on his comments. I find his comments highly ambiguous but his explanation seems to fit his.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that it's terrible propaganda but I don't think it's very effective.
If anything, it's effective against Congressional Democrats, who're falling over their own feet in eagerness to demonstrate how much they want to be as "patriotic" as the Republicans.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
WTF happened to Democrats in Congress, anyway? I remember thinking in March of '03 "There's no way this crap is happening like this. There's no WAY we're invading Iraq." Then we did.
Then November of '06 happens, and you think something might change. What, has Dick Cheney got all of Washington, DC by the short hairs? I know he's powerful, but you'd think at least most of the Democrats would try to seem like they're not secretly owned by Cheney lock, stock, and barrel.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Democrats could stop the war right now if they wanted to simply by not funding it. They don't have to pass a bill to end it, they just have to not pass a bill that would provide funding. The troops wouldn't starve and they wouldn't be defenseless, there's a law that gives the presidentt he money to keep them alive, but they wouldn't be able to prosecute a war.
Democrats don't do that because they fear doing so would kill their chances to win back the presidency in 2008, and they ware wagering heavily that continued hatred of the war will further their Congressional gains in 2008 plus net them the Oval. It's a big risk, to see if hatred of the war will overweigh hatred of their inactivity. But thus far, regardless of their INCREDIBLE political ineptitude, they are still managing to rate higher numbers than Republicans do.
So when you ask, 'What the hell is wrong with Congressional Democrats?' Your answer is: 2008. I think almost regardless of what happens in the next year, Democrats will pick up a net gain of three Senate seats, MAYBE four. I think they will pick up 10-20 House seats (net gain). And they have a 50-50 shot at the Oval. So long as they keep their majority, win or lose the White House, the war won't last much past January 2009 in its current capacity. If they lose, they have nothing to lose in going to extremes to end the war. If they win, they can run the table.
Democrats are starting to pin several issues as security issues, especially energy independence and the environment, which are increasingly becoming important, and the market is increasingly showing that Republicans are dead wrong in their rhetoric. And the more they can do that, and the more they can show that Republicans are wrong on security, the more these little gaffes will be washed away when the major campaigning starts. A lot of of this will be forgotten in six months.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I fear Rush has damaged our party too much and we will loose.
Therein lies the problem with attempting the sort of propoganda where you trick your own supporters into believing lies that strengthen their support. It is very effective in the short run - by that I mean that it galvanizes "the base" and gets them fired up to support conservative positions in the upcoming election. But in the long run, lying to yourself inevitably commits you to supporting positions that turn out just plain wrong. You can only tell yourself "Mission Accomplished" so long; eventually you end up tripping over the lies you've committed yourself to.
Folks like Rush or Hannity or Coulter help Republicans win elections now, but they are doing major damage to conservativism in the long run. How are Republicans supposed to figure out who to select as a candidate if so many listen to media outlets that no longer give them an accurate sense of what is fact and what is fiction?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say Hillary looks good for '08, but Giuliani is a close second. Still, though....I think either one would be a decent president, depending on the advisors they pick. Ya might not like Bill Clinton, but only a fool couldn't see that the man would literally be the best advisor a president could have. He actually did the job for 8 years. Was he perfect? No. But, who would you want to guide you through uncharted jungles, though....Bwana, who grew up there and knows it like the back of his hand, or Cecil, who just got off the plane and has never been there before? heck, I don't know.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Rush's name REALLY Rush? What an odd name. Did someone just nickname him that in college?
I don't know why the credibility of most conservatives hasn't been watered down by these guys. They really know how to use this language that is not completely logical. When Liberals speak like that, I take it with a grain of salt. I dislike it when conservatives like Rush equate being against the war with being against the country... Furthermore, the Democratic party for the most part is pusillanimous
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I doubt that any of the current independents are going to buy into the "Democrats hate the soldiers" philosophy. In other words, I agree that it's terrible propaganda but I don't think it's very effective.
It is effective against people who already listen to and trust Rush. It may not be changing minds, but it is effective against changing minds of Rush supporters.
quote: On a different note, I must admit that I have to give Rush the benefit of the doubt on his comments. I find his comments highly ambiguous but his explanation seems to fit his.
I don't give him the benefit of the doubt. He did talk about a soldier (a few minutes later) who was a "fake soldier," but he was doing that in the context of showing that the only people the democrats can find who don't support the war are fake.
This goes back to my mini thesis that when you look at the aggregate of what Rush espouses, you see a pattern where he denies military personal would not support the war.
Rush is a master at saying, "A=B and B=C, chuckle, and that is the Democratic template to try and destroy moral." He never says "A=C," and when anyone tries to call him on it he talks about the lefts' smear campaigns because they can't argue ideas.
Example: Republicans want to win and Democrats want to loose. The Military wants to win and the left uses fake soldiers to try and defeat our mission because we all know the left is invested in defeat. Chuckle...you see people, the left can't argue on merit or ideas, so they have to find fake soldiers or fake accomplishments/medals like in Kerry's case. (fallout) How dare you say I don't support the troops or think that our brave men and woman are fake! I have done more then...yada yada yada to support our troops. And the left...yada yada yada..actively trying to secure our defeat.
The unspoken line is that since Republicans want to win and democrats want to loose and the military wants to win, THEN....the military must be republican. The only people the left can find to not support the war are FAKE because our military is brave and wants to win!!!
It is his template and it is effective against his dido-heads. If you ever try and talk to a passionate Limbaugh listener about the war, you quickly see that assertion.
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: And there was me thinking that Geddy Lee had done something naughty...
No, that was Alex, down in Naples a few years back. But it's Neil who's missing the point. Why did they have to start getting all political and ideological on us? Just sing about androids and sun dogs and stop alienating me!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to listen to Rush too, but not anymore. Personally, I'm so fed up with politics from both sides of the spectrum, that I just don't care anymore who said what to whom.
Btw, I don't think Ron Paul has a chance.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
