Thursday, May 28, 2009

Reject the GOP: Sharing the Disgust No. 3 - Rush Limbaugh is the Conservative Message

Number 3, of who knows how many. As a conservative, my husband and I feel we're marinating in disgust at the GOP and the RNC. I find my friends feel the same. I think sharing our disgust and our rejection of the GOP and the RNC is a good idea. Maybe it will inspire you and maybe you will realize you are not alone. This is not about a third party, as I have no clear opinion about the wisdom of that idea. This is only about rejecting the GOP, and letting them know why we think they are the curse of conservatism.

Rush Limbaugh Conservative Message
Here's some disgust I found as I was visiting around and I'm sharing it with you: FOX Nation printed a segment from Rush Limbaugh's show on May 27th. I'm assuming this is a message Rush wants to get out, so I too am taking his intellectual property "for the good of the people." The message to the GOP is "Go after Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and let America know who she is, which has nothing to do with the fact that she is a female and Hispanic." We do not care about her "life story." We may admire it, as we admire all who have worked hard to overcome obstacles, but her life story has nothing to do with her judicial philosophy. Our objection to her has everything to do with her judicial philosophy. Wake-up GOP!
*****
Rush Limbaugh May 27, 2009 RUSH: You know what my problem is, folks? I want to be very honest. I have never been an oppressed minority, even though I am in a minority. I don't think like one. Conservatism is an oppressed minority today. The Republican Party is an oppressed minority. The only problem I have is I don't think that way. But they all do. When you're an oppressed minority, what do you do? You willingly go to the back of the bus and you willingly shut up and you willingly don't make waves. If ever a civil rights movement was needed in America, it is for the Republican Party. If ever we needed to start marching for freedom and constitutional rights, it's for the Republican Party. The Republican Party is today's oppressed minority, and it knows how to behave as one. It shuts up. It doesn't cross bridges; it doesn't run into the Bull Connors of the Democrat Party; it is afraid of the fire hoses and the dogs, it's compliant. The Republican Party today has become totally complacent. They are an oppressed minority; they know their position; they know their place. They go to the back of the bus. They don't use the right restroom and the right drinking fountain, and they shut up. I don't think this way. I don't think of myself as an oppressed minority or as a member of an oppressed minority, and I hope I never do think of myself as one. I'm just an American. Truth is the truth. I'm an enlightened individual, and an enlightened individual is one who seeks truth. Barack Obama is not an enlightened individual. He is a narcissist. Barack Obama seeks himself, seeks adoration, adulation. He's like narcissists. He's stuck on his own reflection in the mirror, in a pool of water. He's not substantive. He sees himself the way he sees a reflection of himself, and he wants everybody else to see him the same way. Barack Obama thinks of himself as a member of an oppressed minority, but he's not taking it, he's fighting back. He's going to go so far as to desecrate the Constitution to address his grievances. The Republican Party, they've mastered it, they've got it down pat. Washington, DC, may as well be -- (interruption) what, Snerdley? Washington, DC, is the Old South for Republicans, if you want to draw the analogy. They have gotten comfortable being an oppressed minority and they play the game; they don't speak out; they shut up. And when they do get gutsy and try to shut up or speak up, they do so in a way that won't offend anybody. The Wall Street Journal, November 15th, 2003, Review and Outlook: "'Why The Democrats Borked Estrada, In Their Own Words' -- Now that the Senate has concluded its 30-hour talkathon on judicial filibusters, we thought readers might like to peer inside the filibustering Democratic mind, such as it is. This plunge into the murky deep comes from staff strategy memos we've obtained from the days when Democrats ran the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001-02. Or, rather, appeared to run the committee. Their real bosses are the liberal interest groups that more or less tell the Senators when to sit, speak and roll over -- and which Bush judges to confirm or not. Here are some excerpts." This is a memo to Dick Durbin. "You are scheduled to meet with leaders of several civil rights organizations to discuss their serious concerns with the judicial nomination process. The leaders will likely include: Ralph Neas (People For the American Way), Kate Michelman (NARAL), Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), Wade Henderson (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights), Leslie Proll (NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund), Nancy Zirkin (American Association of University Women), Marcia Greenberger (National Women's Law Center), and Judy Lichtman (National Partnership). ... The primary focus will be on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees. The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent." November 7th, 2001, memo to Senator Durbin. "The groups singled out three -- Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit) -- as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (DC Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible." There are other memos in the story to Senator Kennedy telling him who to meet with and how to react and how to behave. But here's a memo to Dick Durbin from the special interest group saying that Miguel Estrada on the DC circuit must be opposed because he's Latino. Why? The Democrats get away with opposing people because they're Latino. We get punished if we oppose somebody because they're Latino. And we have to shut up because somebody's Latino. We have gone out, we've had two people in our party literally, John McCain and George W. Bush, grant amnesty to how many millions of illegal Hispanics in the country. Did it get anybody anywhere, electorally? Estrada, nominated for a high court position, Alberto Gonzales, they were opposed because they're Latino, by the Democrats. Now, they didn't say so publicly. These are internal memos. But the Democrats can oppose Latinos left and right and they can oppose blacks left and right, and they never seem to pay a price for doing that. Why is that? Why does nobody get concerned if Democrats may be alienating voters from these various groups? Why when they opposed Clarence Thomas did they not suffer one loss of a black vote? Why? And yet the Republicans have been made to believe, in their currently extinct status, that opposing Sonia Sotomayor simply because she's Latina will ruin their chances for the Hispanic vote, a vote they don't have anyway and a vote they're not going to get this way. They're behaving like an oppressed minority. Whatever their masters tell them to say or do, not say or don't do, they say or don't say, they don't do. They are entirely compliant. They're obedient. The Republican Party today is totally obedient. Now, there are some exceptions. We got some great conservatives in the House. I'm talking about the old guard, country club blue-blooders that are trying to define the party and run it. They're obedient. They are so obedient that many of them endorse and vote the Democrat candidate. That's how obedient they are to their masters. They have mastered the art of thinking and acting as oppressed minorities who are not interested, by the way, in emancipation or freedom. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Lou in Pullman, Washington, as we stay on the phones. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello. CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you for a great 20 years. RUSH: Yes, sir. CALLER: I want to get right to it. I want to take issue with my fellow subscriber Nancy. I think that we ought to be just like the Democrats. I think we should ignore gender, race, class and sexual orientation when the person that we're looking at doesn't agree with us. That's what they do. Look at Clarence Thomas. RUSH: We should emulate the Democrats and ignore what? CALLER: Gender, race, class and sexual orientation when the person doesn't agree with us. RUSH: Well, who's doing that now? CALLER: Well, the Democrats. RUSH: No. No, no, no. Tell me the Republicans who are opposing Sonia Sotomayor because she's a woman or a Latina? CALLER: Oh, none. But I think we should ignore the fact that she is and go right for the issues. RUSH: Well, it doesn't matter if we do. The media is all over the place with the fact she's a Latina, the first one ever nominated, first one nominated to the Supreme Court, the first woman, her compelling story. We're the ones that do ignore this stuff. We're the ones to whom none of this does matter. CALLER: Right. But my point is that Nancy thinks it's going to come back and bite us, but the Democrats do it all the time and it doesn't seem to bite them. RUSH: Yes, that's been my point all day. CALLER: Absolutely. I've been on hold for a long time. RUSH: I thought you said you agreed with Nancy. CALLER: No, no, no, no, no. RUSH: Oh. CALLER: Nancy, I want to take issue with her. RUSH: Oh. I thought you were disagreeing with me. CALLER: No, no. RUSH: Well, I apologize for the contentiousness. CALLER: No. RUSH: So you're just echoing what I said? CALLER: Yes. I think we ought to ignore -- they always do one thing. They take into account gender, race, and class. RUSH: Well, that's the point I've been making all day. These people, the Democrats can trash all kinds of blacks, minorities, Latinos, and it never seems to hurt them. Why does it only hurt us? When we do ignore it, it's not a factor to us. I couldn't care less, for example, where Sonia Sotomayor came from, what her race or gender is. She's a disaster on the basis of her history as a judge. Don in Vermilion, Ohio, nice to have on you on the EIB Network, sir, hello. CALLER: Thank you, it's a pleasure to speak with you. My point was in regard to the e-mail that you read earlier. From the standpoint of a conservative there's no such thing as an Hispanic vote, an Afro-American vote, a Native American vote, it doesn't make any difference. It is the same and it's so basic, just like you have been saying, it's so fundamental. I don't understand what's confusing about this. There's never been any question what the conservative response to anything should be because the fundamentals of conservatism are what our foundation is and there's never anything that's nebulous about that, very easy to understand. RUSH: Well, you're right. Let me paraphrase this. You're right as far as describing conservatives. But you're wrong if you want to include the Republican Party in it today, at least -- again, I better specify which Republicans I'm talking about. I'm talking about the old guard, the Tom Ridge, Colin Powell, the country club blue-blood, the Arlen Specter types. They're the ones who do want to do identity politics. Now, you say that conservatives, you know, the fundamental conservative does not look at people and see Hispanic or white, black, woman or whatever. And I know what you mean by that. You mean by that that as one who believes in the conservative ideology, we see people as people, we see people as Americans. We want a great country, and, as such, we want everybody to succeed. We want everybody to be as good as they can. We want everybody to strive to be the best they can, and in the process, we want to get all kinds of obstacles out of their way. We have faith, we have belief in ordinary people accomplishing extraordinary things, just get out of their way, inspire them and motivate them and they'll do it. The liberal looks at people with utter contempt, condescension and contempt, doesn't believe people are inherently good or qualified or competent or able to overcome these obstacles in life. By definition, the liberal who seeks power over people thus places these obstacles and makes people dependent and then says you can't do it without me. The Republican Party has bought into the notion here that we need to get that segment of the vote and then that segment of the vote and then that segment of the vote or population if they are to win. The Democrat Party, for almost its entirety has been a coalition of various interest groups. In fact, it's an amalgamation of coalitions. You've had Big Labor, you have feminism, you have Big Environmentalism, you have anti-capitalist, and they all have their own single issue pet peeves, but the thing that unites them is their belief and love of huge government controlling everybody else's lives. The Republican Party and the conservative movement was not put together with this kind of attitude, it's not put together with that kind of mind-set. Controlling people's lives? The basic difference is Democrats live and breathe, liberals live and breathe and they go to school to get trained to work in and control government. On the other hand what we want to do is reduce the size of government. We don't want to take over. We don't want to work there. We want to be in the private sector. So we're already at a bit of a disadvantage because their life, their world, is built around government. Ours is built around avoiding it, you know, making it as constitutional as it can be and function as it's constitutionally directed to, but then that's it. The liberals look at it in an entirely different way. Let me read something here real quick. Vin Weber this afternoon on Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, she spoke with Vin Weber, Republican strategist. She said, "Is there a real pitfall here for the Republican Party going after Sonia Sotomayor on her ethnicity when we've seen how Hispanic voters have flocked to Obama, in a real change from the way many more supported George W. Bush." WEBER: The front pages of just about every paper in this country today described this as President Obama picking the first Hispanic justice, and Republicans should be very wary of challenging that. Furthermore, when Republicans get holier-than-thou about identity politics, I remember how proud Republicans were when President Reagan named the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor. We were proud that we broke that ground as Republicans. They'd better not start abandoning that and start pointing fingers about identity politics to the first Hispanic to go into the court or they're gonna find themselves in trouble. RUSH: I guess we have to throw Vin Weber in the group who's now a member of the oppressed minority. Vin, I don't know anybody who opposes her on ethnic grounds. I don't know anybody. I guess what these people are afraid of is that any opposition to her will be said to be based on ethnic grounds. Okay, so, to avoid them saying that about us, we won't say anything. We'll just throw in the towel. And then when we get our chance we're going to nominate a Latino -- oh, we did that, and it didn't help us. And then we're going to nominate a black -- oh, we did that. Didn't help us! This is not complicated to me, but see, I don't think like an oppressed minority. RUSH: Who said this? "If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." And who said this? "Pressure makes diamonds." Same person uttered both quotes. Greetings. Great to have you here. It's El Rushbo on the cutting edge of societal evolution, on the most listened to radio talk show in America. Telephone number if you want to join us is 800-282-2882. E-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com. "If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." How did you know that, Brian? How in the world did you know that? What, did somebody Google it real quick in there? That's right, it's general George Patton who said both. "If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." Why am I saying this? Well, if the Republicans want to start thinking like Democrats, somebody's not thinking, and we know the Democrats are thinking and strategizing. "Pressure makes diamonds." That is also from George Patton. You know, I sit here, ladies and gentlemen, as I think about all of this debating within the GOP and with the Democrats. We conservatives, we really do have the best arguments. We have the most responsible policies. We have the most humane principles. The more we confront these people, the more we debate, the more we expose, the clearer that will become, not just to us, but to others. And that's why we have to keep it up. I'm getting a lot of e-mails, "Rush, please don't quit, please don't stop!" I have no intention of it, folks. I was telling Snerdley here during the break, I fully expect at some point in the near future to receive a phone call, a private phone call off air from somebody, somewhere in elected Republican Party politics asking me to tone it down. I fully expect this to happen. They are scared. This Supreme Court nomination, coupled with the election of Obama, this is, to them, these oppressed minorities rising and up finally saying we're not taking it anymore and you guys are going to find out what it's like to be an oppressed minority, and they're scared and they're willing to be oppressed minorities, the Republicans. They're willing to think that way. On the other hand, if we surrender to the left, if we surrender to these old guard moderates in the Republican Party who want to surrender to the left, none of this would be happening. Even in this, what do the moderates offer? They just repeat their platitudes, they tell us to keep quiet. They don't even want the debate. That scares them. The old guard moderates in the Republican Party have no faith in who they are because they have no idea what principles that they will defend. They don't even know what principles they will surrender. They have no confidence in who they are and what the nation is, but we do, we conservatives do. We are overflowing with confidence about who we are and what this nation is. But the Republican Party old guard, the blue-blood country clubbers do not. BREAK TRANSCRIPT: RUSH: Englewood, Florida. This is Tom. I'm glad you waited, sir. Great to have you with us. Hello. CALLER: Great to have you with me also. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: I agree with you 110% on the Sotomayor deal. The only thing is, I think that we need an attack dog on this situation, somebody in Congress that can take her over the coals just the way they did Bork and as you described. Look, they're gonna think of us anyhow has hypocrites and homophobes and racists so who cares anymore, you know, let's go after it, let the news media do what they want to do. RUSH: You know, there's -- CALLER: The only thing -- RUSH: Wait a minute. That's an interesting point. How can the Republican Party get in worse shape than they're already in? That's kind of what you're saying, how can they get themselves in any worse shape than they're in now? So what you're saying is a tried-and-true principle. If they're going to rip you anyway, at least tell the truth. CALLER: Exactly. You know, and I'll tell you who was on the other day on your show, I was listening, was Cheney, Liz Cheney. RUSH: Yeah. CALLER: I couldn't believe how easily she made those limp liberals look bad, you know. Too bad she's not a Senator. I'd like to see her question this woman. RUSH: Well, Liz right now is focused on the foreign policy aspects of the Obama administration. But I know what you're saying. CALLER: She's bright. RUSH: She's bright, but she's showing how it's done. She's going on television and she's giving a class, a tutorial on how not to accept the premises of the media and the left in these interviews. Look, I don't want to dishearten you out there, Tom, but there is no indication I see that this attack dog you envision exists. I don't see it. I see Chihuahuas. END RUSH LIMBAUGH Read Rush's background material here, and his 1997 prediction about Sonia Sotomayor here. Related: Rejecting the GOP: Sharing the Disgust - No. 1 Rejecting the GOP: Sharing the Disgust - No. 2

©2007-2012copyrightMaggie M. Thornton