‘Mr. Obama, Tear Down These Walls!’
Yet whereas Reagan was speaking for a people who had known only oppression since the end of World War II, Limbaugh was speaking to people rooted in freedom. Reagan was asking the East European communists to embrace Western freedoms and Limbaugh was urging the very ideological descendants of those communists to leave the West alone: “Most wealth in this country is the result of entrepreneurial [action], just plain old hard work. There’s no reason to punish it. There’s no reason to raise taxes on these people.”
And Obama certainly plans to raise taxes. How else is he going to pay for bailout after bailout? And he has to pit one American against another to do this. That’s right. Obama has to destroy tranquility in order to justify using the people’s money to send in the cavalry. In so doing, Obama is fast approaching a precipice over which may be this nation’s ruin. Limbaugh put it this way:
President Obama is so busy trying to foment and create anger in … [an] atmosphere of crisis. He is so busy fueling the emotions of class envy that he’s forgotten it’s not his money that he’s spending. In fact, the money he’s spending is not [even] ours. He’s spending wealth that has yet to be created. And that is not sustainable. It will not work. … President Obama, in six weeks of his administration, has proposed more spending than from the founding of the country to his inauguration.
And the implication of such proposals, should they pass into law, is unnerving:
It is not going to engender prosperity. It’s not going to create prosperity and it’s also not going to advance or promote freedom. It’s going to be just the opposite. There are going to be more controls over what you can and can’t do, how you can and can’t do it, what you can and can’t drive, what you can and can’t say, where you can and can’t say it.
Who wouldn’t oppose such an agenda? Who wouldn’t hope that such an agenda fails? Yet in hoping Obama’s policies fail, Limbaugh is hoping America succeeds. He sees freedom’s continuance in Obama’s failure. Therefore on his daily talk show on March 3, he followed up his CPAC address by saying he would support this administration’s policies if they would truly stimulate the economy instead of destroying it:
I would become Barack Obama’s biggest cheerleader … if he actually proposed ideas to jump-start this economy, so there isn’t any more economic pain and we can bottom out at some point and start building this back.
In 1987, Reagan said:
We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. … [So] if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
Limbaugh is doing nothing more than that now, albeit in a different setting. In the midst of Obama’s claims to be pursuing this nation’s prosperity, Limbaugh is calling on him to reverse course and pursue tax cuts, less regulation, and thus freer markets, so the creative spirit of the American people can be unleashed once again. In short, Limbaugh has called on Obama to tear down the walls that keep us from economic achievement and advancement. And there’s nothing “brash,” “crappy,” or “ugly” about it.
Well, all I can say is “Fat Chance”.
These people are totalitarian Marxist-Leninists.
This country is in the mess it is in mostly because of them, worse is et to come.
OK. It’s official.
Now that we have Whoopi’s comment that Rush’s speech was “crappy”, the diagnosis is in. They’re all suffering from Rush Derangement Syndrome.
Whatever will they say if Rush gets on the air tomorrow and asserts that spring is coming?
I cannot understand how anyone who enjoys the freedom we have in the United States of America, would want the American Dream to fail. I hope America succeeds, which must mean by their very condemnation that I too hope President Obama fails.
In fact I hope he fails quickly and either resigns or finds some way to rescind as much of the damage he has already inflicted on the citizens and the constitution he swore to protect and defend.
There are those who purposefully refuse to get it. They are not worth the PHD they’re reputations get printed on. Thank you Mr. Hawkins for drawing such a fine comparison.
Rush is so reactionary that he traces his personal philosophy all the way back to the Bill of Rights. In a nutshell: Personal liberty is guaranteed by placing strict limits on government. How hard is that to understand?
Mr. Obama has stated that he wishes to see the Constitution as a statement of “positive rights.” It sounds innocuous on the surface to a public unwilling to consider the price.
The battle comes down to a this or that. Rush is de facto leader of the conservative movement because he was the only one with the guts to pick up the banner when it fell. The troops are beginning to rally. Republicans in congress need to listen.
God bless Rush and God bless you, AWR Hawkins , for this article.
MPHobgood, Rush is going to need all the God-blessing he can get, cuz the devil’s got a hold on his fat ass. Keep it up Rush, we love it, no better poster boy for the GOP than a fat, loudmouthed, angry, hate-filled, racist, dressed in black.
Rush’s speech wasn’t perfect, but the parts Hawkins has picked up on were. This is a fine article and I’m sure Rush is thrilled to be contrasted with Ronaldus Maximus.
too bad coward jack t can’t realize it takes one to know one. All the hate and racism is on the left.
JackT,
Since all you seem able to do is insult the messenger, I can only assume that you have no logical rebuttal to the message.
Actually, Rush’s CPAC speech was a lot closer in form, setting and situation to P. T. Barnum’s euology at the funeral of Jumbo, the enormous performing pachyderm who was killed by a locomotive. Both men offered heartfelt, over-the-top, stentorian praise for a large dead thing that was urgently in need of burial, lest the crowd be overwhelmed by its roiling stink.
The parallels, of course, are broader than that. Both Limbaugh and Barnum occupy the same economic niche-role and employ an identical business model: Bang the drums, rile up the rubes, regale them with tales of magic, Arabian silks, mythical beasts, forbidden dances and feral jungle women — then sell them a ticket to see an aging, tattooed prostitute and a sabre-toothed, feathered chimera assembled from chicken-wire, angora and rendering-plant castoffs.
Limbaugh, like Barnum, knows his show is bunkum, but he loves the smell of peanuts and the sound of the calliope. And as long as it sells a bazillion dollars of hardwood flooring, adjustable mattresses, offsite data storage and chewable zinc “cold lozenges” (which Rush will gamely pitch, even when he himself is dripping snot and hocking up lung-nodes), he doesn’t give a rat’s ass that he’s duped you, as long as the gate receipts are solid. As every great showman knows in his bones, you can only con people who WANT to be conned — and what is so evil about giving the people what they want?
Did you ever notice that Rush never ventures forth to walk among his unwashed, living-wage listeners? Call me a cynic, but my guess is that a fortress-dwelling millionaire who spends a trucker’s annual salary on hand-rolled cigars and pedicures would likely be repelled by the sweaty, Skoal-sucking, deer-hunting, Ford-driving fan-base that paid for his private jet and his drug-romps in the DR. In fact, I guarantee that Rush will never meet any of his down-home, John-Galt-wannabee groupies in-person, unless they happen to be cleaning toilets in the Clubhouse at Bay Hill.
Rotwang:
Since all you seem able to do is insult the messenger, I can only assume that you have no logical rebuttal to the message.
Rotwang.
Please explain how building bridges and roads will put money in the hands of borrowers and bond owners that have lost money because of a huge interest rate hike from 2003-2005 thus causing a liquidity crisis that is destroying the banking system and denying consumers and producers the means to exchange goods and services?
Sorry about the question mark. I would still like an answer from Rotwang to the question.
Great piece. Brings back memories of one the greatest of men, Ronald Reagan.
11. Bill N
The “message” — that Obama is an America-hating closet-Communist who wants to destroy our financial infrastructure and reduce all of us to serfdom — defeats itself. What chance does a penniless tyrant have against 300 million starving, pissed-off, well-armed citizens? C’mon, Bill, don’t be a right-wing douche.
George Bush, John McCain or Ronald Reagan would be doing exactly the same things. Cut taxes for the wealthy and rollback services? Fine, if you don’t mind firing millions of Federal workers who STILL draw pensions and benefits for not working. Implement a flat-tax? Fine, except that you’ve just ruined a million CPAs, and slashed the IRS workforce by 70%. Drastically reduce SS, Medicare, Medicaid and disability outlays? Works for me, as long as you can explain to me how “The Invisible Hand” is going to replace all the money you just vanished out of the system, and deal with millions of starving, sick Americans with no safety net.
Rush is a substance-free loud-mouth, an advertising pitch-man without a conscience. He’s all for a massive die-offs, riots in the streets, escalating home invasions, food shortages, cannibalism and Civil War — just as long as the downside doesn’t ripple as far as Palm Beach, or interrupt his daily foot-rub.
I’m sure he’s grateful to all the truckers, farmers, machinists and security guards he fluffs and panders to on his daily broadcast. I’m also 100% sure he won’t miss any of you, should he succeed in sabotaging your only hope of economic recovery.
12. JL — Please explain to me how two years of interest rate hikes created $7 trillion in bad mortgages and $600 trillion in CDS liabilities. Or are you just high?
Look — make-work projects aren’t going to save America. They’re only going to buy us time for a decent going-away party. Be grateful for that.
Capitalism, “free trade” and a global economy have finally brought us to their inevitable theoretical end-point. Everything falls apart, only the wicked win…and the rest of us need to wrap our heads around the notion that we are all Bangalore now. America has no monopoly on technology, talent or resources, so the whole “exceptionalism” thing is just so much sentimental bullshit. Corporations have no geographic loyalty, so whatever is left of “nations” will be reduced to cutting sweetheart deals and outbidding the labor costs submitted by Zimbabwe and The Sudan.
America would be dead, even if Sarah Palin were President. What’s happening is bigger than politics or policies, and in the end it’s all going to come down to how crazy we’re willing to get with our stockpile of nukes. That’s our only hope, ’cause we don’t have another chip in the game.
For those of you who think you’re John Galt, and Rusty is Captain America and the United States is a just, honest, righteous and shining City-On-a-Hill — well, good luck and fare forward, sucker. You bought the dream, now chew on it.
wrecking the economy and increasing misery is not a “bug” of leftism, it’s a “feature.”
Leftists are the people that would rather make $50k when the average wage is $25k than make $100k when the average wage is $200k. They are angry bitter people, similar to a stereotypical ex-wife, whose great joy comes from inflicting “justice” on her former love, without regard for the objective benefit/penalty of either party.
Mongoose
Try a little vocabulary building cause calling people Marxist Leninist totalitarians doee make some people think you are a crackpot.
Ronald Reagan never told jokes, supposedly self effacing, about how God thinks he is Reagan.
Anyone who needs a fat anti-intellectual bully who insults and speaks in gross over generlizations to tell him what and how to think is a person of negligible intelligence and integrity, a simple herd animal.
Like I said before, stick a flag and label it Reagan and I can sell lawn sausages as Italian sausages to con-tards
Great parallel between the two speeches. As Rush would say, “Right on, Right on, Right on.”
Holy Jesus! Rush is now Reagan. Perfect. Wow, you folks are selling The Gipper’s legacy at rock bottom prices. The cult of personality around Reagan is beyond respect or contribution, it’s a self-generating myth machine. Kind of like Elvis but without the fried banana sandwiches. And now you’ve gone and discounted Double-R so deep that he’s now being flogged to promote some drug-addled gas bag. what are you thinking . . . comparing the “Great Communicator” to this thrice divorced admitted junkie who used his maid as drug mule? this Viagra-popping Whore Monger of the Dominican Republic? This . . . That . . . the other . . . Rush . . . Hail Rush . . . Vote fore Rush . . . Support Rush . . . listen to Rush . . . do what Rush says . . . Believe Rush . . . a-a-a-a-n-n-n-n-d-d-d SNAP!
That’s good . . . How you feeling?
Rot:
Once again, insulting me only makes it plain that you have no argument worth reading. If you have something cogent to say, say it. If you don’t, keep on insulting people and exposing the vacancy of your hate-filled philosophy.
I come back after a few hours to check the comment thread and put my foot square in a pile of troll poo. Good God, it’s everywhere! Someone get me a shovel. Nay, this job will need a bulldozer.
O ne
B ig
A ss
M istake
A merica!
Rush Limbaugh’s fat bloated pill popping body is the symbol of everything that’s wrong with the Republican party.
For a bunch of intellectual, well educated leftists, the use of ad hominem arguments shows significant weakness in your argument. I am no fan of Obama, but will not sink to calling him names when I can use effective arguments against his speeches and policies. Raising taxes during a recession on those that invest to promote growth, only suppresses growth. To think that your policies will not affect the habits of the people invested in companies seems naive. The bad part is that almost everyone is invested in the market. To ignore the affects of these policies as just “gyrations” puts almost everyone’s retirement at risk and is irresponsible.
Every person participating in this thread makes decisions in accordance to their own economic situation. A person who makes $30k a year cannot purchase a million dollar sports car, possibly not even a used rust bucket according to where they live. This is human nature and to ignore this effect is tantamount to incompetence or worse malice.
During the early 1990′s the Democrat Congress and then President Clinton raised taxes on domestically produced luxury boats. Did this reap a significant tax return? No, it cost tax revenues (I have a problem calling taxes revenues, but I have to keep it simple) it closed the domestic boat building industry eliminating thousands of jobs. No matter how hard you try, the rule of unintended consequences always catches up with you. There are more examples from the “Great Depression”. Unemployment after spending all of that money, make work projects and taxing the life out of the “rich” did not recover until WWII. Look it up the numbers do not lie.
So the final question is are we going down the right path? This path has failed every time it is attempted. It failed in the 1930′s, was a disaster in the 1970′s, and cost Japan a decade of malaise. So will we wake up before we loose a decade? Only time will tell.
At least Rush said what he meant and meant what he said. There was no “nuance” or position with an expiration date attached to his words. You can disagree with him, but he will still talk to you even on his radio show. The same cannot be said about Pelosi, Reid, or Obama. When Obama was talking to the Republicans and they made suggestions his response was “I won”. Given that response who is willing to talk to whom?
I don’t notice any of the flaming re Rush addressing what he actually SAID.
22, paules. I think we have found a job that is “shovel ready”
Great piece. I only wish more people had caught what Rush was really saying. We are up against it here, and it would be quite helpful if Obama would remove the barriers to freedom like tax increases and regulation.
First off, let me say this a great piece. Secondly, let me say the kind of comments made by “middleman” above prove that the ignorance in this country is so vast we may not be able to overcome it. Limbaugh is not important because of his looks, his weight, his clothes, or the number of aspirin he does or doesn’t take in the morning. He is important (as Reagan was important) because he speaks clearly the ideals which have undergirded our society since its founding; the very ideals that Obama wants to destroy.
Greetings, all.
We should collectively ignore Rotwang, because in my opinion he is a Communist along with the Obamessiah. All communist takeovers have been conducted this way: appeal to intellectual debate; then disarm the populace; then, after you have taken over, guess who they liquidate first: the intelligentia. Example: Fidel Castro, college professor, recruits his fellows, turns revolutionary, overthrows Fulgencio Batista, nicknamed ‘The Botcher’, then proceeds to out-butcher the butcher, starting with his former colleagues. When all the ‘brains’ are either dead or have joined him, who is left to oppose him? God save America.
OOPS, sorry – ‘Butcher’
As far as Rush’s address is concerned, it was the greed that poisoned the market due to the current deregulations that put us in this position in the first place. I don’t agree with all of Obama’s methods, but it’s amusing that he is to be berated for trying to clear up what was screwed up by the people most of you support. Guess what, It didn’t work the way it was suppose to. Communism doesn’t work on a large-scale model in reality, just like unregulated capitalism doesn’t work on a large-scale model.
Right on. We are in a scary spot right now, and I am so grateful for Limbaugh’s refusal to cave.
The comparison to Reagan is actually quite humourous.
Reagan spent money like crazy rebuilding the military. His detractors screeched about the then-record deficit. What Reagan did though paid back well enough (wealth creation) that by the time of Clinton the budget was balanced.
It’s fair to be critical of Obama’s spending; like most leftists he doesn’t get that spending money on technology (usually via the military) and energy is an investment.
Ike did it too. Interstate highways? MILITARY road system… investment.
The difference between liberals and conservatives isn’t measured as Limbaugh suggests by counting dollar signs, but rather what they’re spent on. Claims to the contrary are just that, claims, and aren’t substantiated by actual data/historical record.
If Obama promised to spend the same amount on creating 10 new nuclear power plants in every state of the union, I’d CHEER like crazy because this is an investment. Of course, that’s not going to happen. He’s an idiot.
Rush doesn’t see it either. He sounds like nothing more than an empty windbag because that’s all he is. In the end all you have is a windbag who doesn’t get it insulting an idiot who doesn’t get it.
It’s not a matter of what we want. Obama has failed. He failed when he adopted policies that had never worked anywhere. He failed when he ignored historical evidence that what he desired created more want than have. It doesn’t matter what I want, what Rush Limbaugh wants, or what anyone else wants. Failure is the only possible outcome. Do I want Obama to fail? Yes. But it wouldn’t matter if I didn’t. Our Economic Illiterate-in-Chief would have sown the seeds of his Administration’s destruction either way.
The so-called “stimulus” plans and massive bailouts were Obama’s Iraq. They just happened in his first month in office, and unlike the war can’t be saved by a wise general or more of the same. I’m not even certain the nation can be salvaged because of Obama first and unforgivably reckless actions.
Limbaugh’s speech was good as those things go. But it was no more than acknowledging water is wet.
#34 G Alston – You make good points. I would like to clarify, however, that every budget Reagan proposed was balanced. It was the Dem Congress that created the deficits. The reverse was true of Clinton. The Pub Congress had to force him to accept a balanced budget. Clinton took credit for the ensuing boom caused by… (drum roll, please)… tax cuts and balanced budgets!
The good thing about Reagan’s military buildup, is that such never create a permanent bureaucracy. Military expenditures can be discontinued. That’s part of how the budget eventually got balanced in the Clinton years.
Grover Pillsbury:
You can tell someone is a reactionary fool when he calls everyone he disagrees with a communist.
Marc Malone, your thesis is total crap. The military is a permanent bureacracy full of smaller permanent bureacracies that have ceased to have relevance. Can’t you at least make sense for once, which starts by being honest? What about the military pension and benefit future costs, as well as maintenance on facilities?