Star One Smart Blog's

Rush & his staff deal with the 'ruts' of Reverend Jesse Jackson's problems...

A bit of "I told-you-so" and schadenfreude rolled up in a nice two-minute soundbite.



Remember right after BHO was sworn in, early in 2009; Rush Limbaugh stunned the Left (and plenty of the pragmatic 'Right') with his proclamation, "I hope he fails" ? Prompting a massive fight between the true Right Wing sorts and the 'Pragmatic' Big-R Republicans who felt we should wait a while, because Barack Obama was a Good Man?

Didn't work out so well for the Praggs. We found out very quickly that Rush was Right.

Fast forward 21 months. Barack Obama has failed.

Now, the Big Guy gets to speak his mind. Thanks, you bastiches at Media Matters, for saving it for me (h/t RCP Video).

---

See the famous Rush Limbaugh CPAC speech "I hope he Fails" here.

There's likely an apoplexy in the works. From Steve Portney, via Jake Tapper at ABC...

The nation’s preeminent conservative talk radio host referred to Mr. Obama as a “jackass,” an “economic illiterate” and an “idiot, where capitalism is concerned.”

The New York Times has an editorial up today that's impressive for it's clarity and honesty; and for once, even if they are trying to underhandedly bash Rush Limbaugh, they only succeed in getting things right.

Asks Zev Chafets, who has a book in the works "Rush Limbaugh, An Army of One", 'How and why are conservative Republicans doing so well right now?' Aside from the wake-up call of doom that the election of an unbelievably far-left President announced, that fateful election awakened many good people who would like to see this great nation continue to succeed; for that to happen, the policies of Barack Obama must be thwarted at every opportunity. The party of NO, indeed. And yes, Obama's policy initiatives must fail for this nation to survive.

Zef Chafets at the NYT...

The Limbaugh Victory
...

But the most obvious explanation is the one that’s been conspicuously absent from the gusher of analysis. Republican success in 2010 can be boiled down to two words: Rush Limbaugh.

Mr. Limbaugh has played an important role in elections going back to 1994, when he commanded the air war in the Republican Congressional victory. This time, however, he is more than simply the mouthpiece of the party. He is the brains and the spirit behind its resurgence.

How did this happen? The Obama victory in 2008 left Republicans dazed, demoralized and leaderless. Less than six weeks after the inauguration, in a nationally televised keynote address to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Mr. Limbaugh stepped into the void with a raucous denunciation of the new president’s agenda and a strategic plan based on his belief that real conservatism wins every time. He reiterated his famous call for Mr. Obama to fail and urged the party faithful to ignore the siren song of bipartisanship and moderation and stay true to the principles of Ronald Reagan.

Democrats responded by branding Mr. Limbaugh — whom they considered self-evidently unattractive — as the leader of the opposition. The day after the conservative conference, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, went on “Face the Nation” and described Mr. Limbaugh as the “voice and the intellectual force and energy” of the G.O.P.

...

[Limbaugh's] strategy was simple. With Democrats controlling Congress, Mr. Limbaugh saw that there was no way to stop the president’s agenda. He dismissed the moderates’ notion that compromising with the president would make Republicans look good to independents. Instead he decreed that the Republicans must become the party of no, and force Democratic candidates — especially centrists — to go into 2010 with sole responsibility for the Obama program and the state of the economy. And that is what has happened.

Mr. Limbaugh was not just the architect of this plan, he was (and continues to be) its enforcer. Dissenters like Arlen Specter, whom Mr. Limbaugh disparaged as a “Republican in Name Only,” found themselves unelectable in the party primaries. Moderates like Michael Steele, the party chairman, were slapped down for suggesting cooperation with the administration. When Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia had the temerity to suggest that Mr. Limbaugh was too uncompromising, he was met with public outrage and forced into an humiliating apology.

When the Tea Party movement emerged, Mr. Limbaugh welcomed it. The movement’s causes — fighting against health care reform, reducing the size and cost of government, opposing the Democrats’ putative desire to remake America in the image of European social democracies — were straight Limbaughism. A very high proportion of the Tea Partiers listen to Mr. Limbaugh. Sarah Palin’s biggest current applause line — Republicans are not just the party of no, but the party of hell no — came courtesy of Mr. Limbaugh.

...

Rush Limbaugh came along after the age of Ronald Reagan. He has never really had a Republican presidential candidate to his ideological satisfaction. But if the party sweeps this November under the banner of Real Conservatism, Mr. Obama will find himself facing two years of “no” in Washington and, very likely, a Limbaugh-approved opponent in 2012.

If that happens, if we succeed in pushing back against this far-Left assault on American (and it must succeed for this nation as we knew it to survive) then Rush should get a Congressional Medal of Freedom. Because Rush Limbaugh, alone at times, has stood up against the far-Left Social Democrats, and given hope and direction to the people of this nation who deserve better than what some of the weak-spined Republicans in leadership roles (those who would 'just get along' while the country burns) have provided.

But what about Aunt B's chance for a boat ride?




Air America gave us such notable jokes as Rachel Madcow and that moron Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken.

Jim Treacher asks an important, suitably rhetorical question. From his WaPo link...

Since last summer, Air America has been heard in the Washington area on WZAA (1050 AM). Its audience has been so small that Arbitron, which compiles radio ratings, was unable to detect any listeners for WZAA during several weeks in December.

But don' worry, lefties, you'll still have that other liberal and somewhat more formidable presence on the airwaves: NPR. Isn't it time for a fundraiser? "Donate now, and George Soros will match your meager donation 20:1 !"

That's the only way these America-haters will make it. Dig deep, Georgie-Porgie, time to bail out your kids again.

---

Oh. Nothing from Aunt B on Air America's demise, but there is a post up on various cats and something about eating from the litterbox.

Poor gal. D'you think she noticed?

---

Sometimes you just have to agree with Rush, because he's RIGHT.

"You know, human beings are human beings, they have jealousies. This is the IOC's show, it wasn't The Obama Show. They came over there, they tried to hijack the whole thing and the IOC bitch slapped them. It's no more complicated than that."

---

Worth listening to. Remember Nancy Pelosi's calling us 'Nazis'?

Methinks she needs more better drugs. Maybe hormone pills, if she's had her ovaries removed?

Put her on a hormone drip or something. )

---

...in 4 parts.

---

One of the nasstiest tricks the Left pulled last fall was to attack Sarah Palin's wardrobe, those purchases the Republican Party made on her behalf. Well, that's all out the window; the FEC dismissed those complaints...

WASHINGTON - The Federal Election Commission has dismissed a complaint over the $150,000-plus designer wardrobe the Republican Party bought to outfit vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the good-government group that filed the complaint, argued that candidates aren't supposed to use donor money for personal expenses such as clothes. The FEC ruled Tuesday that the ban doesn't apply to party money, however.

Hardly a word, now, about those $540.00 shoes and that collection of tablecloths and curtains our First Klingon is wearing...

Sarah Palin is a hate-magnet for the far-Left. They've few targets to latch onto, since George Bush has faded from the spotlight. Perennial targets of hate, and targets of opportunity (including Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Joe the Plumber, and now Carrie Prejean of all people) catch their sputtering winds of spite, but lovely steely-eyed Sarah Palin brings out special fear and loathing. That's all it is, really; fear that Sarah Palin might expose their soft, weak underbellies, and loathing that Sarah Palin eclipses their far-left socialist offerings with her determination and popular anti-Washington flavor. Pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, and, like Ted Nugent, tough as nails.

Sarah Palin was (and is) a breath of fresh air to the dismal pollution that is Washington D.C. politics. Of course the lefties are threatened by Sarah; she's unbent by their tirades and their invented crusades against her.

One thing for sure: John McCain was a sorry-ass candidate, and probably doomed to failure from the start, but he received millions and millions more votes than he would have because of Sarah Palin. Mine for one. Not that I would've voted for that dirty socialist rat Obonga, but I might've stayed home, or voted third party. Which would've been, as we all know, a wasted vote.

---

It's a split-second world: in predator-prey interactions, natural selection favors fast-thinking Conservative sorts. Now, in our new, soft, pansified world, lefty-liberals (those of weaker minds and simpering responses) have the luxury of time to 'couch' their reactions. If anything happens to this thin veneer of civilization (think worst-case scenarios, a meltdown after Barack Obama's neo-Socialism destroys our economy), Conservatives will be survivors.

Because we are more suited to respond quickly to predator-prey moments.

Case in point: Ted Nugent, rocker extraordinaire, NRA Board member, Conservative icon, answers questions posed by a sissified 'journalist' (h/t Jeff Goldstein)...

UP: Well, look at Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is a substance abusing criminal.

TN: Really?

UP: He was. He was hooked on oxycodone.

TN: You're one of those guys that's going to try to equate rush Limbaugh with meth heads?

UP: No, but he was illegally using drugs.

TN: He had a prescription drug problem for a period of time. But, in the final analysis, is Rush in the asset column or the liability column. Did he learn from his mistakes or didn't he?

UP: I don't know. I don't know him.

TN: You call yourself as journalist and you don't know that?

UP: I don't know him personally, I don't know where he is personally.

TN: I think it's universally known that Rush beat that demon. And he's been on the law-abiding side for many more years than he was on the law-breaking side... but to compare Rush's blink of and eye stumble to the drug culture. Martin, I gotta tell you, when I see you I'm going to have slap the shit out of you. I'll buy you a mocha, then I'll knee-cap you. Because that is so soulless. What a far-reaching fantasy.

UP: I just don't know that drugs are a liberal or conservative problem, is all I'm saying.

TN: Bottom line? Do conservatives and liberals all make mistakes? You think? Do conservatives at least not just preach, but do their damndest to implement and certainly live by a realm of accountability? You're damned right they do. Do liberals? No...

Goes without saying that Ted Nugent would be a survivor, if and when something untoward happens to our left-shifting society.

I'd much rather be in his company than that of any Leftist, if such an untowardness did happen.

---

A weekend of laughter, no doubt. Two jokes, two different sides of the political aisle.

Guess which joker felt the need to apologize? That's not even a good rhetorical question. Everyone knows that answer.

First, from the Left, a sensationally funny joke:

Unfunny Comedian Compares Limbaugh to bin Laden; Obama Laughs (Update: Obama to Sykes: Great Job)

"You've had your fair share of critics. ... Rush Limbaugh said this administration fails. ... He just wants the country to fail. To me that's treason. He's not saying anything different than what Osama Bin Laden is saying. You might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight. ... Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good waterboarding, that's what he needs."

I hope you die. Funny, dat. Read Brian's excellent write-up, complete with videos, for more.

I think today would be a good day to listen to Rush.

The other joke you might not have heard. David Feherty laid this old 'three people, two bullets' joke on Nancy Pelosi...

CBS Sports golf analyst David Feherty apologized Sunday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a morbid joke that went bad in a Dallas magazine.

"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though," Feherty wrote toward the end of his column. 

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA~!

Hmmm. Sorry. Obviously over the top. My laughter is inappropriate.  )

Not a lot of difference in these jokes. Both were over the top. But the tale plays out like an overused script.

One joker had the gumption to apologize...

"This passage was a metaphor meant to describe how American troops felt about our 43rd president," Feherty said in a statement. "In retrospect, it was inappropriate and unacceptable, and has clearly insulted Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, and for that, I apologize. As for our troops, they know I will continue to do as much as I can for them both at home and abroad."

One joker had the President of the United States grinning from ear to ear. But don't expect any apologies from that lefty cooze.

One joker will probably lose his job, or at least find less work coming his way. There's not a great market at CBS for golf analysts; at least he wasn't employed by NBC, he would've been fired already. Doesn't Olbermann run that network now?

One joker will be celebrated and toasted, and reap economic benefits from her remarks (and will probably get a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, what you wanna bet? But watch out for Those Arms, Wanda, don't get any ideas, you'll get a hug that might crush your kidneys...)

One joker (who has gone to Iraq over Thanksgiving the past two years to visit with U.S. troops, and created a foundation to help wounded soldiers) will be truly sorry, and regret his intemperance.

But I'll leave it to you to guess which joker I would rather spend time with. Or which joker would fit in better as, say, an embedded correspondent in Afghanistan or Iraq.

See you on the course, David.

---

DougM at KISP created a nice rollover image celebrating the Democrat's Hate Rush billboard, released in Palm Springs last week. I helped out by putting that in .gif (animation) format (because I can't create rollover images, damnit!)

Nice work, DougM.

---

Here's where we see a fine, oh-so distinguished American, a true worthy of the office of President of the United States, performing as best he knows how..

The President Is 'Keeping Score'

Chicago politics has moved into the White House.
By KARL ROVE

"Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." That's what President Barack Obama said to Rep. Peter DeFazio in a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus last week, according to the Associated Press.

A few weeks ago, Mr. DeFazio voted against the administration's stimulus bill. The comment from Mr. Obama was a presidential rebuke and part of a new, hard-nosed push by the White House to pressure Congress to adopt the president's budget. He has mobilized outside groups and enlisted forces still in place from the Obama campaign.

Senior presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett and her chief of staff, Michael Strautmanis, are in regular contact with MoveOn.Org, Americans United for Change and other liberal interest groups. Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina has collaborated with Americans United for Change on strategy and even ad copy. Ms. Jarrett invited leaders of the liberal interest groups to a White House social event with the president and first lady to kick off the lobbying campaign.

Its targets were initially Republicans, as team Obama ran ads depicting the GOP as the "party of no." But now the fire is being trained on Democrats worried about runaway spending.

Why not target members of both parties? When someone has the Machinery of Chicago Politics in place, when all one knows is 'community organization', why CHANGE now? MoveOn.Org, ACORN, all these 'communities' are kept running at high speed, and pressuring anyone who questions the schemes of Barack Hussein Obama. Even now, 5 months after the election, I'm still getting e-mails from David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, asking for money.

What sort of 'score keeping' is O! up to? Why, it 's the trusty well-used Alinsky Narrative..

Members of Congress should also worry about how Mr. Obama is "keeping score." He is steeped in the ways of Chicago politics and has not forgotten his training in the methods once used by Saul Alinsky, the radical Chicago community organizer.

Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals," is a favorite of the Obamas. Michele Obama quoted it at the Democratic Convention. One Alinsky tactic is to "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." That's what the White House did in targeting Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer.

Well, Mr. Obama, there's plenty of scorekeeping going on around here. Every single time you open your mouth, it seems, you screw up, and that ever-watchful scorekeeper, the Stock Market, is reacting. There's some numbers you can't threaten. You can come out and fire GM's CEO Rick Wagoner (instead of that idiot Tim Geithner) and watch the market react, down, down, down baby. Or, as lovely and talented Ann Coulter points out

Apparently, it's OK for Obama to fire the head of General Motors, but Bush can't fire his own U.S. attorneys.

It is generally agreed that the Obama administration's demand that Rick Wagoner resign as chairman of General Motors is the price of GM's accepting government money.

To promote the sales of GM vehicles, Obama says the government will stand by your GM car warranty. And all the taxpayers will get a lube job. The new GM owner's manual will come with a disclaimer: "Close enough for government work."

Now that we're all agreed that the government can make hiring and firing decisions based on infusions of taxpayer money, I can think of a lot more government beneficiaries who are badly in need of firing.

Just off the top of my head, how about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and everybody at the Department of Education?

How about firing all the former Weathermen, like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Mark Rudd, whose university salaries are subsidized by the taxpayer?

None of those crooks, liars and real-live terrorists who deserve to be fired (at best, fired: some need imprisonment) are getting pink slips, but damned if Obama doesn't put it to a Capitalist.

Meanwhile, Tim Geithner's Treasury Dept. machinations are worrying to Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz..

What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships — with the private sector in control — have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess.

And no happy moment for taxpayers, who are stuck with these losses. Mortages that were thoughtlessly created; greed-fueled and government-mandated. We should not suffer these losses; let the bankers and politicians and fund managers who enabled these losses suffer mightly. The gilloutine of capitalism is bankruptcy: let's hear it sing. There will be a turn around eventually; we will come back stronger than ever, if we allow the free market to work. Government stimulus, Keynesian economics, those are losing propositions.

We must stop funding these bailouts. We've got to allow the markets to sort themselves out, without government meddling. Any further government meddling. Any more money spent on GM and Chrysler; on absorbing toxic assets held by banks, is money coming out of our grandkid's future earnings in the form of punishing taxes and lower standards of living. And, a government that's more socialist than we've ever known. Not America as I know her; but America as dreamed of by a petty scorekeeper.

TANSTAAFL: and the lunch we eat today, the bailouts on the Obamenu, represent food taken from out of the mouths of our children, tomorrow.

Challenge? Of what challenge do you speak?

An editorial column in yesterday's LA Times by Andrew Klavan puts the Limbaugh Challenge right on the front stoop of one of the most liberal newspapers in the nation. That challenge..

Take the Limbaugh Challenge

Liberals who hate Rush Limbaugh -- why don't you actually listen to his show before bashing him?

If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh no, you haven't. Whenever I interrupt a liberal's anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: "I've heard him!"

Most likely what they've heard is the snarling spittle-flecked responses from Rush's detractors (including White House Obama cabinet members, and similar left-wingers who've taken their talking points from media voices. Oh, and perhaps from some so-called 'moderate' Republicans (David Frum, Kathleen Parker and others infected with the Republirhinovirus) come to mind. Oh, and the latest lefty darling, that bimbo Meghan McCain (for whom I had this advice: "If you really love this country, then join the service, like your father did. Earn some honor; garner some respect. Because now you have neither." Harrumph).

Back to that LAT column (getting close to the best part ):

By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate, and I'm tolerant of a wide range of differing views -- but this goes too far!"

There is more untruthfulness in that statement than in a speech by President Obama. Even the commas are self-deceiving. You're not a moderate or you wouldn't be reading this newspaper. You're not tolerant of a wide range of views; you are tolerant of a narrow spectrum of variations on your views. And, whatever you claim, you still haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Which leads to a question: Why not? I mean, come on, the guy's one of the figures of the age. Aren't you even curious? I listen to all your guys: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Times, the New York Times, the New Yorker -- I check out the whole left-wing hallelujah chorus. Why are you afraid to spend a couple of hours listening to Limbaugh's show and seriously considering if and why you disagree with him?

That's a question every liberal will have to answer for herself. But this, now, this answer from Andrew Klavan is worth bolding and offsetting and, really, putting on it's own pedestal. Ready to have your lefty head asplode? Now, again, why do liberals not listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

(Yes, emboldenings are mine. To make sure you see it.)

This, printed in yesterday's LA Times.

I wonder how many lib'ruls are picketing the joint this morning? Calling and canceling their subscriptions? Let's hope quite a few.

Occasionally, the MSM gets something right. Rarely so, now, but when they do, I'll be the first (well, second: you didn't think I'd read the LA Times, now did you? ) to acknowledge it.

---

..it's best to put it in it's Place.



This, from an earlier thought.

OH, and the famous four words.

Can you dig it????