Free Markets, Free People

Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama and George Orwell

Stephanie Gutmann brings up something I’ve noticed. She starts with an Orwell quote:

“The program of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor…All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies, perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters perhaps even — so it was occasionally rumoured in some hiding place in Oceania itself.” 

1984 by George Orwell

She then says:

In the passage above, and throughout 1984 and Animal Farm, George Orwell illustrates how regimes with tentative hold over beleaguered populations deflect anger away from their own corruptions and mistakes with the deployment of a greatly embellished, even invented, external enemy.

There are many things that bug me about Barack Obama — the insane laundry list speeches, the silly rhetoric, the hostility to the free market — but these are all talked about. He has another habit that hasn’t been talked about so much and, of all the things he does, it makes me the most queasy.

It’s pretty subtle, but I think it’s worth keeping an eye on because, if it were to become full-blown, it has the potential to be the most socially damaging element of his presidency.

I’m talking about what I’m going to call his Goldstein-ism, his tendency to make veiled, dark allusions to a recently vanquished “other”, an evil being (he is never specific) who is, he always implies, the real cause of all our problems.

His references to his “inherited” problem, to bankers, greedy Wall Street and his “predecessor” are all too common, not to mention Limbaugh and Hannity.

So why this tendency to attempt to deflect criticism by blaming it on others? Well, consider the Obama march to the presidency. His entire campaign was based on how bad George Bush was and how necessary it was to replace him. Bush was Obama’s “Goldstein”. And Obama used Bush to deflect attention from his own paper thin resume and lack of experience. He managed to make Bush so bad that those things didn’t matter to most Americans who bought the characterization.

But Bush is gone now. And Obama has no specific “Goldstein” with whom he can shift blame and/or deflect attention. But Gutmann points out, he still tries to use Bush when possible. For example:

Monday was full of terrible economic news. It was another day of “unstoppable selling on Wall Street,” according to AP, a day in which Foreign Policy said ” the markets were sending an unambiguous signal that the U.S. economy is now headed in the wrong direction.” How did the administration respond?

I do not think it a coincidence that late in the day the administration “threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets” as the ever in-the-tank Associated Press put it, with the release of memos “that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers…”

Soooo, what was in these scary-sounding memos? Midway down the article AP explains that the memos detailed possible legal rationale for tactics the Bush admin was considering using in its anti-terror program. You’d have to read further still to see that the “Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions.” Nevertheless, AP harrumphs, “the documents themselves [about stuff that had been discussed] had been closely held.” But who cares what the article actually said: It generated a nice headline — “Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos” — during a day the populace might have been thinking disloyal thoughts about the their president’s direction.

Of course this gets harder and harder for Obama to do, and besides, it’s unseemly if a president does it – that’s what minions are for. And as Bush fades, a new Goldstien is necessary. Enter Robert Gibbs, Rush Limbaugh, and others:

Jim Cramer. Rush Limbaugh. Rick Santelli.

What do they all have in common? Most likely, none of them is getting invited to the White House Christmas party.

All three media personalities have been singled out by President Obama’s press shop in the course of less than two weeks. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in doing so, has shown an unusual willingness to spar with cable and radio hosts who take shots at his boss.

The rebuttals have ranged from playful ribbing to disdainful scolding.

One of the things we didn’t see, for the most part, was these sorts of assaults on people who weren’t the political opposition during the Bush years. And, in fact, few assaults on those that were in the political opposition. Never once was Keith Olberman or a host of others called out from the White House Press Secretary’s podium. In fact, they were mostly, if not completely ignored. But obviously the same can’t be said of the Obama White House.

It’s personal.

So, you have to ask, “why”?

Try Rule 12 from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals“:

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

As you recall, Mr. Bi-partisan, “heal the nation” Obama did have one thing on that thin resume – he was a community organizer from the Saul Alinsky school of organizing.

And as for the attacks coming from the White House Press podium? Rule 5 covers that:

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

After watching the man for two plus years, I’ve come to realize this is more than a tendency, it’s his modus operandi. And one should assume his administration will reflect the bosses MO when dealing with criticism. The difference is Obama has himself under pretty tight control. I’m not so sure that can be said of some others. And that’s where Rule 6 comes in:

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

The danger with Rule 6 as it is now being executed gleefully by Gibbs (“There are very few days that I’ve had more fun,” Gibbs said.) is that he (and others) will overreach. They always do. And it certainly came as no surprise to me to find out Rahm Emanuel was involved in the Limbaugh attacks. So my prediction is this new and advanced “politics of personal destruction” campaign that this administration has embarked on will blow up in their face at some point.

But that doesn’t detract from Gutmann’s point about Obama’s tendency to need and rely on a “Goldstein”. I’m not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, but it seems to indicate, at least to me, a deep-seated sense of insecurity. If I had no more experience than Obama has, I might be looking for such a scape-goat myself.  Knowing that, however, damn well doesn’t make me feel better about it though.  But we shouldn’t be surprised when a Saul Alinsky trained community organizer acts like a Saul Alinsky trained community organizer, should we?

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

85 Responses to Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama and George Orwell

  • Interesting that Gutman writes about the “Two Minute Hate”.  Seems that I see this on CNN every time I’m at the gym: they show an unflattering pic of Rush and go into a spiel about what “outrageous” things he’s said, how “divisive” he is, how he’s “embarrassing” the GOP.

    Happily, I have enough physical activity to keep me occupied and hence I’m not leaping up and down and shouting at the top of my voice in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that comes from the screen, nor do I turn bright pink, my mouth opening and shutting like that of a landed fish.  My face doesn’t become (more) flushed.  I don’t sit very straight in my chair, my chest swelling and quivering as though I were standing up to the assault of a wave.   I certainly don’t begin crying out “Swine! Swine! Swine!” and suddenly pick up a heavy book and fling it at the screen.

    Poor CNN.  They just can’t quite get to me.

    • Umm.  Is there such a thing as a flattering picture of Limbaugh?  Just curious, as I’ve never seen one.

      Poor CNN.  They just can’t quite get to me

      Yes, and I’m sure they stay awake at nights thinking of better ways to get to you.
      You stay strong, doc.  We need stoic men like you who can control their fits, as vanguard against the onslaught of the Cable News Network.

      Cheers.

      • Once again, Rush is right: libs really DON’T understand sarcasm.

        • Really?  So what was sarcastic about your comment?
          That CNN doesn’t upset you?  That there really is a flattering picture of Limbaugh?

          Maybe you just don’t understand sarcasm.  You see, sarcasm is supposed to use ironic cuts and abuses, usually sarcasm denotes that you mean the opposite.
          Sarcasm would be something like this… Yeah, I found doc’s restraint from having a fit about a cable news channel to be soooo funny.
          Get it?

          Perhaps you meant facetious?  Yes?

          • What, no “Cheers?”  Did docjim get to you?

          • Yeah right.  Because I didnt’ give a salutation, that means doc got to me.

            Riiiiiiight.

            (You see, doc… that’s sarcasm.)

            By that logic, then the fact you never give me a salutation must mean I got to you.
            Good work there, Ronnie…
            (You see, sarcasm again.  I’m sure you’ll get it eventually.)

            Ahem …
            Cheers.

        • You’re an intellectual gelding. 
          Your moniker is “docjim505″.  Doesn’t that suggest that you are a doctor?  Doesn’t it?
          So how does a “doctor” feel about being schooled on the meaning of ‘sarcasm’? 
          Man, I feel sorry for your patients.

          Here’s a suggestion, you wretched woman, the next time your at the gym curling your twenty pound weights, and you’re refraining yourself from having a fit at the cable news show, have a look around and imagine yourself being beaten to a pulp by the homely women around you.  It shouldn’t be hard to imagine.  It might just calm you.
          You know, my woman has to restrain herself from having a fit, but that’s only when her monthly appears.  A feeling I can only imagine you encounter as well.  In fact, I’m going to suggest the same thing to her.  I’m going to tell her, “You know what Doc Jim does, he imagines himself being beaten by everyone around here, and that calms him.”

          Maybe that will help her control her monthly fits, too.  It’s worth a shot.
          Thanks, doc.

          • wound a bit tight there mahone,  hmmmm.  

            Better loosen that underwear

          • What wound, capt?  Hmm?

            Would you suggest that his definition of sarcasm was correct?
            Maybe you’re just as ignorant as he is.

            And what are you capt. of anyway?  You’re capt. douchebag, aren’t you?
            I think so.

            From now on, you’re capt. douchebag.  The moniker fits your useless douchebaggery.

          • ahh douchebag.   more NEENER NEENER NEENER.  you make me laugh and that’s all you are really good for.  

            I guess things are more troubled amongst the Obama true believers that is apparent.  

            hahahaha

          • Weird.  Pogy-bait isn’t normally so… um… personal in his remarks.  Harsh criticism of TAO is offered and he responds with screeching and handwaving and ad hominem attacks.  While I could offer a prurient reason for this (*cough* man-crush *cough*), I will confine myself to merely speculating that we’re witnessing a particularly vicious attack of buyer’s remorse.  Pogy apparently bought wholesale into the whole “Hope and Change” mantra, apparently sincerely believed that TAO was something different, and swallowed the whole Lightworker story hook, line, and sinker.  Now, he’s had to admit -horrors! – that TAO is a politician like any other, a mere man who, rather than uniting and uplifting and messiahfying, deflects criticism by criticizing his own critics and casting blame on on his predecessor.  Think how particularly galling it must be for Pogy to see his hero behave (ostensibly) just like the despicable Bush!

            “But… but… but… I voted for Audacity and Hope and Change!  I didn’t think I’d get politics as usual!  What happened???”
            Poor, poor Pogy.  What a dilemma for him!  He COULD admit that he was duped by an empty suit that most of the rest of the writers and commenters here suspected and disdained early on during the campaign, or he could “double down” on his emotional investment not only in TAO but also in his own judgment and try to prove that TAO, though perhaps not the messiah he originally thought, is at least no worse than any other man who’s ever been in the White House.

            Well, I guess we’ve seen the choice Pogy decided to make.

            If the economy continues to do worse, if the country continues to writhe, and if TAO continues to substitute deflection for sound leadership, look for Pogy to grow increasingly shrill.  He’s put his ego on the line to defend his messiah, and (like anybody else), he’ll scratch and claw to defend it to the death.

          • PogueMahone is like most liberals I know, they NEED to be heard. They MUST be heard otherwise their existence fades into the woodwork and this invalidates their being. HEAR ME! HEAR ME! I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY!  And of course they do the ad hominem  attacks AD NAUSEM !! Why? Because in their minds, (and in the minds of their lord and saviour, BHO), you must belittle those who disagree with you.

            PogueMahone  is making great use of rules 5, 6 & 12. Just like a good Alinsky sheep.
            Remember – Attack the person and not the subject.

          • As a follow-up, out of 84 postings,  those starting with “PogueMahone says:” total 19 (the next person replying only comes in at a whopping NINE!). My point stands, PogueMahone MUST be heard. He needs it! Keep posting PogueMahone, maybe someday, you existence will be validated by the number of posts.

            BTW, how many bumper stickers are on your car? Be honest now. We know you must have several.
            ;-)

  • Most have forgotten about those who think they are the chosen ones act.  When the anti-democratic far Left or for that matter when the fascist far Right takes over, they find enemies of the “people” to try to justify their actions.  Eventually they turn on their own because their most enthusiastic supporters become so disillusioned when the idealistic revolutionary ideals are abandoned that they are perceived as a threat and must go – depending upon the regime, in a political manner or worse. 

    The Hitler SA’s or Brownshirts’ , who were his street supporters and fighters during his rise, saw their leadership eliminated during the “Night of the Long Knives”. Supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini used the Left to achieve power in Iran and a few years later eliminated or imprisoned their leadership and many members for the same reason.  Castro did the same thing.  No strong man has ever had any respect for useful idiots throughout history; they are “tossed aside” when it is convenient. 

     
    We have already seen that from Obama.  The area under the bus is very crowded, so he will have to find more room for his former supporters, it appears.

  • Well, I’m waiting for envelope number 2. At some point he’ll have to stop using the advice from #1.

  • So why this tendency to attempt to deflect criticism by blaming it on others?

    Umm… Because he’s a politician?  You and Gutmann are acting as if this a specific Obama tendency.

    They all do it.  You can’t tell me you don’t remember the constant blame game that the Bush administration were playing.  Everytime questions were brought up about the sour state of the economy, the Bush people reflexively yammered on about inheriting a recession from the Clintons.  Or how they didn’t see 9/11 coming was to be put on the Clinton administration being soft on terror.  The Bush administration were the poster boys of not taking accountability and anyone who says otherwise is just an idiot.

    And the practice in targeting easy external targets like Limbaugh is a time honored tradition amongst politicians and others, their groups, causes, agendas.  How often did we see the likes of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill and the like being crucified by conservatives?  How many times are gays and illegals, entertainers and academia, and many more cast down to Hades as the root cause of problems much more complex?
    It’s easy to do, … that’s why they do it.

    Cheers.

    • It is a specific Obama tendency which I at least backed up vs. your rather simple hand-waving denial.

      And it was conservatives who went after Michel Moore, Cindy Sheehan and Ward Churchill, not the White House – another distinction which seems to have gotten past you.

      • It is a specific Obama tendency which I at least backed up vs. your rather simple hand-waving denial.

        So you’re claiming that you don’t remember the Bush administration and their constant deflections to the administration prior?
        Talk about a “simple hand-waiving denial”.

        I don’t remember the White House going after the likes of Moore and Sheehan, but that didn’t stop those speaking on their behalf from doing the same.  Also, if Moore or Sheehan held the same clout that Limbaugh does – the kind of clout that has every elected republican who dares question him come crawling back begging for forgiveness – my guess would be that easy targets like Moore and Sheehan would have made for great fodder just like Limbaugh is doing for the Obama administration.

        But you keep on denying that the Bush administration deflected criticism whenever possible if it makes you feel better about the Republicans.  I understand the depression.

        Cheers.

        • So you’re claiming that you don’t remember the Bush administration and their constant deflections to the administration prior?
          Talk about a “simple hand-waiving denial”.

          I believe we’re talking about your ‘simple hand-waving denials’ here – which, btw, still remain unsubstantiated – while you practice what I’ve pointed out – deflection.

          I don’t remember the White House going after the likes of Moore and Sheehan, but that didn’t stop those speaking on their behalf from doing the same.

          Really? So you know for sure that the WH directed those attacks?

          Again, we’re talking about Obama bringing up Limbaugh. We’re talking about Gibbs bringing him up as well. Unless you have a direct link like the one I’m talking about, your claim is pretty baseless from where I’m sitting – not that I find that particularly surprising.

          But you keep on denying that the Bush administration deflected criticism whenever possible if it makes you feel better about the Republicans. I understand the depression.

          I’ve got to hand it to you, you are the prefect straight man – again you’ve illustrated the point magnificently – deflection. Don’t even try to address the points in the post, deflect it to another subject and the other guy. You could be Obama and Gibbs for heaven sake. You might want to give ‘em a call – I hear they’re hiring – they claim to have all kinds of money. You’d be perfect for the job.

          • I believe we’re talking about your ’simple hand-waving denials’ here – which, btw, still remain unsubstantiated – while you practice what I’ve pointed out – deflection.

            So you don’t remember the Bush White House deflecting criticism.  Of course you wouldn’t.
            Look, by stating that, “They all do it.”  I’m acknowledging your point that Obama is deflecting criticism.  I don’t know why you ignore that statement.  Perhaps you need your own “Goldstein” to deflect that inconvenient fact.
            Here’s Bush doing the same,
            Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in separate speeches Wednesday, both claimed the U.S. economy was already in recession when they were inaugurated in January 2001, implying the blame for the slowdown rested on President Clinton’s shoulders.
            The Republicans are still doing it.

            Politicians deflect criticism.  That’s what they do.  How do you not get that?
            There’s nothing unusual or Orwellian about it.  It happens everyday.  Everytime I see a pol on some talk show somewhere, every criticism that is thrust upon them is greeted with a deflection.  Why the media lets them get away with it is a shame.

            Is there something petty about a White House coming down on a radio talk show host, of course there is.  But it is understandable that they would choose this easy target.  Polls show Limbaugh is not liked outside of the wingnut brigade, he’s even dispised in most quarters.  And the fact that Repubican pols have to line up to kiss Limbaugh’s ring makes him a prime target whenever he says something objectionable.
            There’s nothing unusual or Orwellian about it.  Once again, you guys are reaching for a bridge too far.

            Call it petty.  Call it a distraction.  But to call it Orwellian… give me a break.
            Which reminds me… You claim that it’s “Not if, but when” Obama will bring about another fairness doctrine.  So tell me, why would Charlotte want to kill Wilbur?  That pig is his most useful tool.

            Cheers.

          • So you don’t remember the Bush White House deflecting criticism. Of course you wouldn’t.

            Yow … I assume you were a liberal arts major or slept through any college you might have had because logic is not your strong suit. A does not mean B just because you want it to, Pogue.

            There’s nothing unusual or Orwellian about it.

            That isn’t the Orwellian part. See if you can figure it out, ‘kay?

            Is there something petty about a White House coming down on a radio talk show host, of course there is.

            It is more than petty … it’s ORWELLIAN – another hint. I doubt a surface skimmer like you will figure it out, but there it is.

            Which reminds me… You claim that it’s “Not if, but when” Obama will bring about another fairness doctrine.

            I did? When did I say that?

      • Yeah, well that distinction seems to be forever out of the reach of poor old mahone.

  • Of course this economic crisis was inherited by Obama, and in fact is the work of nearly three decades of living beyond our means.  Also it’s amusing that criticizing Republicans is seen as Orwellian while the attacks on Kerry, Murtha, Ried, Carter, Pelosi, Clinton and others were, well “legitimate criticism,” is that what you’d call them.  Gee, politicians of one party claim problems were caused by the other party.  How Orwellian!  *eyes rolling*

    The fact is the past system has collapsed and a new one is being built — and I think Obama has the right approach in building it, and making sure we don’t forget the people and ideas that led to this collapse.

    • This is coming from the same person who just said in a previous thread:

      to try to undo the massive increase in earmarks over the last decade, especially thanks to the GOP, is going to take time

      Erb even wants to blame the current budget on anyone but Obama. Erb is an idiot, and he reproves it every time he comments here.

    • So reading comprehension is not a requirement for a professorship in the Great White North?  As far as the Bush Administration’s “attacks” on Clinton and Kerry – well one was the former POTUS and the other considered himself the presumptive POTUS – it is called “Politics” – read about it some day, you might find it interesting.  As for Murtha, Reid, Carter and Pelosi are concerned, I will echo McQ – when did Bush or his spokesperson specifically attack those individuals – call them out from the pulput as it were?  Sure, they got their drubbings (and deservedly so) from commentors on these very pages while Democratic shills like yourself defended them.  But as has been stated earlier, they were not attacked by name from the office of the President.  But in this case Obama and Gibbs directly attacked Limbaugh, Santelli and Cramer.  By name.  Show me an instance with the Bush administration when the same was done to the likes of someone like Keith Olbermann (spit), Jack Cafferty, Chris Mathews or even Dan Rather’s forged document segment with 60 minutes.

      Yes there is a distinct difference between the two administrations.  Bush acted Presidential by staying above it.  Obama is acting as childishly as any other 3 year old by chanting “Nanny, Nanny, Poo, Poo” to his detractors.

      • LOL!  Crying “Orwellian” because of criticism of Limbaugh is silly.  I’m sure people in the Bush Administration, and especially Cheney, criticized Democrats at time.  Politicians do that.  It’s hilarious to see people so thin skinned that they get upset about this.  I think it shows that you guys feel on the ropes right now, not used to politics moving so far away from where you want it.   Don’t worry, it may take a decade or so, but the political pendulum always swings back.

        • If you are so sure that members of the Bush Administration criticized Democrats, then be so kind as to prove it.  And this is more than just “criticze Democrats”, this is taking on private citizens from the oval office or the bull pulpit of POTUS.  But then again I don’t expect you to see any difference here.  But you are so adamant that it had to happen, then show your work.  Show us where Bush attacked an individual by name from the oval office – and so we are talking apples and apples, make it someone who is not an office holder.  Limbaugh, Cramer and Santelli are all media types but not office holders.  As I said before, show me an attack on a Keith Olbermann (spit), Chris Mathews, Jack Cafferty or Dan Rather.  Until you can do so, hold you LOLs to yourself – oh and by the way, keep it up there Dems and the pendulum will be swinging in 2010.

    • I suppose Obama inherited a need to create a National Health care system?  I suppose he inherited a need to create a bogus and bullshit carbon cap and trade system that will affect every aspect of the economy from the cost of your gas fillup, the cost of running our electric lights to the cost of your brie,  crackers and wine.   

    • Scott, in this case Obama inherited nothing.  He volunteered.  The extent of the problem was quite clear in September when TARP was passed.  I shed no tears for Obama.   It is more than clear that he and Geithner are in way over their heads.

      Rick

    • Also it’s amusing that criticizing Republicans is seen as Orwellian while the attacks on Kerry, Murtha, Ried, Carter, Pelosi, Clinton and others were, well “legitimate criticism,” is that what you’d call them.  Gee, politicians of one party claim problems were caused by the other party.  How Orwellian!  *eyes rolling*

      I think that Pogue and Erb are confusing an orchestrated, ongoing plan to utilize a specific person as a foil with specific response(s) to specific criticism(s) related to a specific issue.  This Politico article describes a coordinated and sustained strategy to focus on Limbaugh that began with polling conducted last October.  Politico calls it 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 was developed by Paul Begala and James Carville who, along with ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos, are on a daily conference call with Rahm Emanuel.  Neither Pogue nor Erb have have provided any substantive comparison between anything the Bush White House did and Operation Rushbo.  Liberals went into high dudgeon when the Bush White House briefed pundits on war related issues, yet they scoff at the revelation of a Washington Bureau Chief of one of the major news networks participating in a coordinated strategy that runs through the White House and which is intended to deflect any criticism of  their liberal agenda by focusing on one person in the media.

      Furthermore, as just one example in response to your list of poor, liberal souls who were savaged for no reason as they selflessly dedicated their lives to public service and the betterment of all mankind, do you really think that criticism of Jack “Abscam” Murtha is unwarranted?  His shady dealings with PMA Group are a joke.   He falsely accused Marines of wanton murder and blamed it on the Bush Administration to curry favor with Pelosi and obtain a leadership position in the House.   Yeah sure, he wasn’t trying to undermine the war  for political reasons, he was sincerely anti-war.  I vividly remember Murtha’s opposition to the pre-emptive war against Serbia in Kosovo that Congress never approved, that the Russians and Chinese opposed, that the United Nations never sanctioned, that was based on the lie of non-existent ethnic cleansing, that had absolutely nothing to do with our national security, that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Serbian civilians, where there still isn’t a government, where three quarters of a million people were permanently driven from their homes and where we still have 7,000 troops stationed.  Come to think of it, that anyone could have supported Kosovo and opposed Iraq especially when every single criticism leveled against the war in Iraq applied to the war in Kosovo times ten and lacks any self-awareness about the contradiction is pretty Orwellian.

      All of life is but a rorschach test for liberals.      

  • Doctor Erb, one of the few “libertarians” to support massive statism….

    And Pogue who can never seem to find a CONSTRUCTIVE thing to say, but seems to focus more on “neeener, Neener, neener”

    • The more I read the more that seems to be his comfortable intellectual range.

    • Nothing constructive to say?
      Well f*cking knock me over with a feather.

      This from those whose collective comments over the past few years could be boiled down to three words… “Here, here McQ.”

  • Erb today:

    I think Obama has the right approach in building it

    Erb before Obama took office:

    I believe pumping a trillion dollar stimulus into the economy is a mistake

    • That was then this is now…by applying NewSpeak it is all made clear, EastAsia has always been at war with Eurasia.

    • I’ve analyzed this issue, JWG, in my own blog:

      Obama’s Trillion Dollar Gamble.  I grudgingly decided Obama’s plan was necessary, in part because it wasn’t a pure stimulus but actually investment in long term economic development, which is what we need.  But yeah, there is a real risk here that this could spark future inflation/stagflation, and increasing debt now is a very tricky thing.  But yeah, I originally opposed such a bill and as the blog post shows, I reluctantly came to support it. 

      • I originally opposed such a bill and as the blog post shows, I reluctantly came to support it

        >Yeah, this’ll be another in a long line of Erb arguments in which you can claim you were right no matter what happens. It is soooooo Erb.

        Here are a few more past quotes from the Obama fan club:

        Question: will the politicians make the hard choices to handle this, or will they borrow more and finger point?

        One reason I can’t support the Republicans is they spend as much or more than Democrats despite talking a better talk

        Looking at the economics behind the stimulus package and I just can’t support it. Going into debt further makes the structural problems worse, while cutting spending to pay for the stimulus undermines the stimulus. In this case, I side with the Republicans.

      • But yeah, I originally opposed such a bill and as the blog post shows, I reluctantly came to support it. 

        Translation:  it was wrong when a Republican President wanted to do it, but now that a Democrat wants it, it’s the right thing to do.

  • What goes around comes around. It will be a gas to see the next president employ the same rhetoric, and p*ss all over Obama on a daily basis.

    Oh and Erby? The Orwellian part is the White House coordinating with journos to destroy private citizens (albeit ones with big mouths) to deflect the public.

    You say you’re some sort of academic again?

    • LOL!  Destroy private citizens! ??  You guys are too funny.   This is hilarious.  Destroy private citizens?  You think they are destroying Rush Limbaugh.   Poor Rush.   *sniff*

    • “Destroy privates citizens!”
      So, Professor Clueless, to make an analogy, does that mean if a bank robber fails to rob a bank it’s okay from him to make the attempt?    It’s “Joe the Plumber” writ large with the power of the White House behind it no less.  The mistake in this case is of course Limbaugh lives for this kind of stuff, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay for the White House to make the attempt.  And a lot of commenters, at the national media level and outside of those here at QandO have caught on to it, but you’re obviously too dense to notice.  OBumble isn’t ready for prime time on this, but it will rally his progressyve base to give voice to his idiotic plans for the economy.

      This whole thing is like watching a train wreck unfold in slow motion.   You’re standing on the catwalk of the engine exhorting the engineer to go a little faster. The sole comfort I take is that YOU too will be affected by it when it wrecks. 

      • looker, and the rest, you’ve got a funny notion about what is “destroyed private citizen”.

        Limbaugh is crying all the way to the bank.  I’m sure his already hefty contract is reinforced with this latest stunt by the Obama administration.
        Oh, and Joe the Plumber,… I told you guys back when JTP came on to the scene, that JTP was loving every minute of it.  Book deals, speaking at the CPAC, etc.

        What makes me laugh, is that I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that QandO would LOooooooooooooove to be “destroyed” like either Limbaugh or JTP.  Bruce, imagine the traffic.  Imagine the ad revenue that would be demanded.  You’d be booked on every cable talk show from here to Sunday.  Dale’s book would no doubt sale a few copies.

        Damn… the possibilities.
        I wish I could be “destroyed” like those guys.

        It would hurt so good.

        Cheers.

        • You’re not that simple Pogue, you understand the point.   It has nothing to do with what might come of the result of the White House response, it has to do with the fact that they think they need to make one.   We all know Limbaugh is eating this up like a pig presented with his favorte slop.    He really does live for this, no question.

          But using your logic it was good for blacks that the colonists bought and sold them as slaves because it got them out of Africa and into the US.  A ‘positive’ outcome for a bad purpose doesn’t make it a good purpose.

        • Good for Limbaugh and JTP, who are able to turn the tables to their advantage.

          Does that make it right?

          What was done to JTP is an outrage that frankly should’ve ended with the perps hanging from the streetlamps as a warning to all others who’d get the same idea

        • “Limbaugh is crying all the way to the bank.  I’m sure his already hefty contract is reinforced with this latest stunt by the Obama administration.”

          This is just a continuation of your straw man argument.  No one is worried about Limbaugh’s well being.  Guttman and McQ were talking about the White House and how its strategy comports with Orwell’s novel.

          “Oh, and Joe the Plumber,… I told you guys back when JTP came on to the scene, that JTP was loving every minute of it.  Book deals, speaking at the CPAC, etc.Oh, and Joe the Plumber,… I told you guys back when JTP came on to the scene, that JTP was loving every minute of it.  Book deals, speaking at the CPAC, etc.”

          This argument reminds me of Anita Hill.  Liberals were apoplectic when it was pointed out that Hill made millions from her notoriety after she made her factually unsubstantiated allegations about the horrors of a man asking her out on a date and hearing him say the words “pubic hair”.  It really is funny how these arguments get thrown around depending on who’s ox is being gored.   There is a difference however.  Democrat public officials abused their power by invading Joe’s privacy in retaliation for asking a question of a politician who was traipsing through his front yard on a campaign stop.  On the other hand, Hill aided and abetted the character assasination of a man who she followed from one federal agency to another and sought job recommendations from despite her claims that he tormented her.  

          • This is just a continuation of your straw man argument. No one is worried about Limbaugh’s well being. Guttman and McQ were talking about the White House and how its strategy comports with Orwell’s novel.

            Yup – and Pogue hasn’t figured that out YET.

  • Pogue does seem to enjoy playing the contrarian.

    • Well, someone’s got to.

      The rest of these guys just line up like pigs at trough.  Any anti-left slop that’s thrown out gets gobbled down.
      And anything anti-right …  well, that’s just distasteful.

      Cheers.

  • As usual the excuse is “they all do it”, even when, in fact, they didn’t all do it.

    Pogue – find me an example where the White House Press secretary regularly (let alone in the space of a couple days) attacked a private citizen from the bully pulpit of the White House press briefing prior to this goon and his undergoons. 

  • What’s going on here today? Our resident crop of leftists had gone largely dark until today. Now they’re getting all chippy?

    The fact is that you cannot find a similar instance of GWB going after these types of targets in this way- coordinating through his head of staff down to willing journo confederates.

    Here’s the thing that neither Erb or Pogue or any Lightworker defender can answer: why? You do realize that Lightworker can get his agenda passed w/o any GOP help?  The GOP is a powerless minority. Why exactly is it such an urgent matter to demonize them so?

    LOL!  Destroy private citizens! ??  You guys are too funny.   This is hilarious.  Destroy private citizens?  You think they are destroying Rush Limbaugh.   Poor Rush.   *sniff

    Remind me to laugh heartily when someone targets you or your ilk.

    • You do realize that Lightworker can get his agenda passed w/o any GOP help? The GOP is a powerless minority.

      LOL!!
      And yes, shark… Why is that?

      Why is it that the GOP is about as worthless as the scum I scrape off the bottom of my shoe?  I mean… I know why.  But can you bring yourself to say it?  Why was every criticism about the GOP being drunken sailors with our treasure deflected and ignored?

      I’ve read your comments here for a long time, shark.  And I know that you dislike the Left more than you like the Right.  And you have been honest about the failures of the GOP.  That’s why I like you so much.  At least you’re honest.
      So wouldn’t you agree that bickering about politicians, as they usually do, deflecting criticism is less useful as perhaps constructing a Republican party that would remain true to conservative principles of fiscal responsibility?

      Or is getting back in power more important?

      You can be honest… dude … It’s me … Pogue.

      Cheers.

      • Limbaugh is a politician now? Rick  Santelli?  Jim Cramer? 
        Bail faster Pogue, the level is rising and it’s not whiskey or Guinness covering your boots.

        • Limbaugh is a politician now? Rick  Santelli?  Jim Cramer?

          Whoever said that these guys were politicians?  Where did you get that idea?

          Bail faster Pogue, the level is rising and it’s not whiskey or Guinness covering your boots.

          Watch where you’re p!ssing, looker, you’re sinking your own boat.

          Cheers.

          • “Whoever said…etc.”   That’s the point isn’t it.  They’re not.  That’s the distinction being made, that Obumble is so petty he feels he has to respond to any charge from anyone who manages to get hold of a microphone rather than sticking to responding to criticisms from other people of a political stripe who could actually oppose him on the same field, government.    The point of the post is to bring that tendency out where we can discuss it. 

            Good that you got the joke reference about having to piss in the boat.   This administration will turn out to be at least as funny as that I’m sure.

      • Pogue, what goes around comes around.  Today’s “scum” are tomorrow’s powerful. 

        Are you actually claiming the Democrats will remain in power?  Very doubtful.  When the press secretary feels he must follow Rahm’s lead and go after the press, well, he will find the press has long fangs and nails.  If the press turns on Obama after all this, it will be ugly.  And, Obama will be helpless,  He is thin skinned, incompetent, and requires the praises of others to feel good. 

        Gibbs is making us all long for that smooth talker Scott McClellend.  Rahm and Obama’s enemies list is reminiscent of Nixon’s. 

        Rick

        • Are you actually claiming the Democrats will remain in power?

          No.  Are you actually reading the comment you’re replying to?
          We’re talking about the here and now.  I’m sure Democrats will f*ck up enough to allow the Republicans to regain power and f*ck sh!t up just the same.

          When the press secretary feels he must follow Rahm’s lead and go after the press, well, he will find the press has long fangs and nails.

          Ah, so you believe the press isn’t in the bag for Obama like so many others claim.
          Well, good on you.

          Cheers.

          • “…the Republicans to regain power and f*…etc” – ah, never truer words spoken I have to say.

          • No. Are you actually reading the comment you’re replying to?

            Why should he be held to a different standard than you are?

          • Why should he be held to a different standard than you are?

            The fact that I acknowledge that Obama is distracting from his criticism, and that you refuse to acknowledge that Bush did the same thing, then you’re right.

            It appears to be the standard of this discussion.

            You just can’t bring yourself to do it.  You can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that Republicans do the same.  They play the blame game.

            And like I said, and many others before me, any criticism of the Right around here is just distasteful.  What are you afraid of anyway? I’m sure no one here will demand that you kiss Limbaugh’s ring.

          • The fact that I acknowledge that Obama is distracting from his criticism, and that you refuse to acknowledge that Bush did the same thing, then you’re right.

            Ye gods – and again you miss the point.

            Whoooosh.

            Why in the world should I ever expect you to understand the Orwellian nature of this when you’re living it.

          • Yes, the pigs.

            To arms!!!

            Orwellian… pathetic.

          • Bruce, you are expecting him to debate you and present his points.  That hasn’t happened yet.

          • Would I be expected to debate your points?  Just what exactly are your points?

            Would you contest that the Bush administration didn’t deflect criticism?  Seeing as how McQ refuses to debate that point.
            My guess is no.  You’re a fool, but not that big of fool.

          • What point?

            How does your claim have anything to do with the point of the post? It’s ain’t about just deflection. Yes, all politicians do that. It’s about much more than that – and that is what you continue to wave off or ignore.

            Either that or you just can’t quite wrap your head around the difference being made.

          • Maybe he really is that stupid.  Perhaps the bravado that he displays is what he learned on the shortbus he rode in on :)

  • http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=alsJZqIFuN3k

    Yeah, our fricking deposits could suddenly be in danger, but Limbaugh is where they’re focused.

    Keep laughing Erb

  • Obama is afraid of taking on Congress
    Watching Obama during the run up to the passage of the “economic stimulus” was like watching a little boy being lead around by his mommy (Nancy Pelosi).
    There there little Barry .. sign on the line.
    Does Nancy Pelosi have pictures of Obama with a dead woman or a young boy ? It sure seems so.
    RULE 5

  • Why is it that the GOP is about as worthless as the scum I scrape off the bottom of my shoe?  I mean… I know why.  But can you bring yourself to say it?  Why was every criticism about the GOP being drunken sailors with our treasure deflected and ignored?

    Have you ever actually read this web site? 

    So wouldn’t you agree that bickering about politicians, as they usually do, deflecting criticism is less useful as perhaps constructing a Republican party that would remain true to conservative principles of fiscal responsibility?

    Eh.  As I told Cap many times before he ran away, I’m indulging in a bit of “tit for tat” for the past 8 years.  As for the GOP,  I have very little say in the matter. I throw my votes, time and money where I feel it does the most good. The rest is up to them.

    • Have you ever actually read this web site?

      Almost everyday.  And I’ve rarely seen you criticize the Republicans for their wasteful spending.  In fact, the few posts here that actually do criticize Republicans, you’re damn near silent on the issue.  Which is odd, because you’re often the first commenter for any other given thread.

      Eh.  As I told Cap many times before he ran away, I’m indulging in a bit of “tit for tat” for the past 8 years.

      Which makes you just as petty as they are.
      Congratulations!!  You’ve reached the bottom that you were so diving for.

      Don’t stand above the rest, shark… That would make you, oh what’s the word… oh yeah, … an individual.

      Cheers.

      • What you call “reaching the bottom” I call “illustrating teachable moments”

  • And the fun part is Cramer is a Democrat himself.  Geeeeeeeee whiz……..

  • I went home for lunch and saw Obama talking on TV today.  Of course the DOW tanked for another 280 points today.   Those 2 things seem to happen with suprisingly regularity on the same day. 

  • That’s because Obumble thinks the Dow reflects yesterday and last week instead of tomorrow, next month or next year. 

    • The was a story the other day about Obama the Nortrodamus of our time.
      Every time he talks .. the DOW goes down .. and some investors have noticed and they go short just before the speeches.

  • I do see the point Guttman is trying to make, but I believe Orwell was merely taking an well-worn political tactic and amping it up to “eleven.”  I’m not sure that the attempt to make Limbaugh a figurehead for the Republican party approaches the “Goldstein” level. 

    It is notable that a perceived defense of Limbaugh has drawn out the resident lefties.  In fact, I believe we have seen an example of those Alinksy rules in practice right here in this thread.  It seems to have manifested itself spontaneously.  Perhaps Alinksy merely codified a manner of thinking.

    • Geez. Limbaugh is only part of the play, for heaven sake. Gutmann doesn’t even mention Limbaugh. Limbaugh’s an example of the point, not the point.

      • I’m following you.  I just have Limbaugh more in mind in light of the apparent Begala/Emanuel/Carville collaboration.  (Is “cabal” too strong a word?)

  • Did Obama vote for or against the 2007 and 2008 budgets when he was a Senator?

    If he did so, he cannot claim to “inherit” the deficit.

    Anyone know this?

    • Does any one know if he even bothered to show up for the vote ?

      • I mean, if he did vote for it, and they have it on the record, that would be a great ad.

        I get how a governor could claim he “inherited” a budget, but how can a Senator?

  • Pogy-bait… Dude… Get back on your meds.  Seriously.