60% of the troops via campaign donations do not support Bush’s Iraq war strategy? Do the Rush supporters think 60% of the military should leave the military since you think they are not REAL SOLDIERS? And what is a REAL SOLDIER vs. a non- REAL SOLDIER?
Capital Eye-| Assessed favorably this week by the war’s lead general, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq appears to be causing a surge of another sort—and one that’s not positive for President Bush or the Republican Party. Since the start of the Iraq war in 2003, members of the U.S. military have dramatically increased their political contributions to Democrats, marching sharply away from the party they’ve long supported. In the 2002 election cycle, the last full cycle before the war began, Democrats received a mere 23 percent of military members’ contributions.* So far this year, 40 percent of military money has gone to Democrats for Congress and president, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Anti-war presidential candidates Barack Obama and Ron Paul are the top recipients of military money.
“People are saying now enough is enough,” said Lt. Col. Joyce Griggs, an intelligence officer who said she spent two months in Baghdad earlier this year, speaking for herself and not the Army. “If you’re a soldier, you’re going to do your job, do what you’re commanded to do. But that sentiment is wide and deep.”
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/the-other-iraq-surge
|
|
Elizabeth questions Limbaugh’s draft deferment
THE FEW THE BRAVE and what happen RUSH?
Politico-An Air America producer just sent over some transcript from an interview their Richard Greene (not our Richard Greene) conducted with Elizabeth Edwards, in which she questioned Rush Limbaugh’s Vietnam exemption:
My classmates went to Vietnam, he did not. He was 4F. He had a medical disability, the same medical disability that probably should have stopped him from spending a lifetime in a radio announcer’s chair; but it is true, isn’t it? If he has an inoperable position that allows him not to serve, presumably it should not allow him to sit for long periods of time the way he does. I think this is a serious enough offense for the people who fund him, who buy ads and allow him to be on the air, need to be asked if this is what they really stand for, do they think it is all right for someone who has never served to denigrate the men and women who have simply because they are expressing an opinion. Frankly, I thought that is what we are fighting for.
In the interview, Edwards also suggested that John Kerry shouldn’t have conceded when he did in 2004.
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/elizabeth-questions-limbaughs-draft-deferment |
|
Survey USA just release some new head to heads for FL. Rudy 43 Hillary 49, Fred 42 Hillary 50, and Romney 41 Hillary 51. Romney is within 2 points of Rudy.
The idea that Rudy is a better candidate against Hillary is nonsense. Romney and Fred are far less well known than Rudy and they do just as well as Rudy against Hillary. Both Romney and Fred have more upside potential against Hillary as they become better known. The more conservatives know about Rudy the less likely they are to support him.
The idea that Romney has to make a speech on religion can wait for the right time. All Romney needs is a strong campaign and some good press. He can beat Hillary in the general.
|
|
|
rocker, that was a great comment for someone as liquored up as you must be. However, I'd recommend holding yourself to only one quart of King Cobra a night. It will go a long way towards helping your spelling and it won't hurt your liver, either! |
|
So can any of the people who keep talking as if Limbaugh is losing tons of listeners everyday back it up with actual DATA?
I heard Reid throw that out there and some other loud mouth on this thread. Last I checked, Limbaugh's reaching some 20 million listeners. What's YOUR audience? |
|
I never served and I support the war. It's so cool! That's just the tip of the iceberg, Bobzers! Dig this:
I don't like crime, but I'm not a cop.
I'm oppose arson, but I'm not a fireman.
I'm against white collar crime, but I'm not a lawyer.
I'm pro-life, but I've only adopted one child.
I'm in favor of term limits, but I'm not a politician.
You see, Bobzalinkers? I embrace my hypocrisy. I'm more than a chickenhawk. I'm a...a...heck, I don't even know what I am, I'm such a hypocrite.
Unlike you, of course. And just what was it you do for a living, Bobzerswobzers? |
|
|
Mitt Romney who never served defending Rush Limbaugh who never served. Other than John McCain and Donald Rumsfeld, have any other Republican leaders served in the military? Or any of their children. And look at their hero's - John Wayne and Ronald Reagan - one never served and one served in the back lot of Hollywood. And why is it they never mention Eisenhower who was a true military hero? They probably consider him a RINO! |
|
|
|
"FRED I forgot what I orderd. The truth is, I haven't read the menu."
LOL! |
|
|
Wha? How does trashing our brave soldiers reflect well on anybody? Does Hewitt mean that because we have come to expect nasty, idiotic, anti-American comments from Tush Limburger, that somehow people are pleased to hear more of this pathetic gasbag's gasping for relevance? Or just that as he loses more and more listeners every day, this will only speed up his burial? One thing's for sure, they're going to need a size XXL coffin - and that's only for his fat head. |
|
..that you guys buy Rush's re-packaging of his comments? I suppose you have no problem with Rush comparing the wounded vet from votevets.org to a suicide bomber.
Keep it up. It seems to be working for ya.
|
|
|
Mitt CLEARLY flip-flopped on Rush and even Limbaugh is saying that. How in the world, then, is Hugh here making Romney out to be the "defender"?? |
|
"He has said the same thing Romney is saying many times. Romney isn't going after Rush. You guys are mistaken. These two are on the same page."
Romney's FIRST commentary on the Rush episode was to CONDEMN RUSH in no uncertain terms without giving Rush the benefit of a hearing. Only after someone in his campaign bothered to get the facts did Romney change his tune, and even then, not to Rush directly. If you look at Limbaugh's site as of 10:40 PST 4 Oct, you'll see Rush still maintains that Romney "threw him under the bus."
For Hugh to push that Romney "defended" Rush is laughable and sad to see from a fellow Christian. Hugh should know better and not give the other side a chance to go off.
Kingston, Pence, Kyl, and Thompson have defended Rush, not Romney.
Hugh, please...enough with the Romney cheerleading. It's getting old. |
|
Is Mitt referring to his flip-flops on abortion and gun control or just his mis-statements?
Yes, in the world of youtube and "gotcha politics," a hot air, pandering windbag like Mitt will have problems.
He's correct that before the internet, a pol could take a hard stand, flip-flop, then have a day to spin it. With youtube, it isn't quite so easy. All the flip-flops can be cataloged and made available to the general public instantaneously. That's why Mitt will eventually be exposed as a fraud conservative, saying one thing to one audience, then doing a 180 in front of another. Maybe that's why he's so eager to regulate the internet.
And MikeS - you're killing me with your Mitt diner dialogues. Hysterical! |
|
I don't know what the hoopla is all about. I heard Rush's comments, and he was obviously referring to soldiers who LIE about their service and what they saw in war. The one he was talking about is in JAIL now because of falsifying his record. That makes him a PHONEY.
People who are dissing Romney because he said that soldiers who have served in the war and now criticize it have earned the right to speak out and should be respected--is the SAME THING Rush says. Rush doesn't complain about soldiers speaking out who are on the other side of the political spectrum, he defends them. He calls them heroes for serving.
He has said the same thing Romney is saying many times. Romney isn't going after Rush. You guys are mistaken. These two are on the same page. |
|
Wow this story about Rush is so popular that only 41 DEMS voted to have RUSH apologise 10 DEMS/0 REPS never voted to have RUSH apologise. Can anyone tell me how stupid this sounds? I mean if you are going to go on the floor of Congress and Bash lie about what someone supposedly said dont you think that you ought to have all of your own party on your side? Well obviously DINGY HARRY didnt get all of his own party votes, next lets have a vote on who is Patriotic and who is not. That way we dont have to worry who is left on the DUMBOCRAPS side to reelect in 08.
DINGY HARRY:(Im sorry for calling the troops enept and losers.
KERRY:(MR NAM)Im sorry I said The soldiers are terrorising the IRAQIS in the middle of the night what a digrace.
SMURTHA(THE EX MARINE)Im sorry I called The troops are murderous thugs.
DURBIN:Im sorry I stated The troops are like little HITLERS and SS MEN and torcherous what ashame to be troop in the American Military.
NANCY P: Im sorry for trying to cut off funding so that your families will have to see you return with no dignity and honor
How many more LIBSCUMS do we have to hear degrading our TROOPS before we wake up and smell what thay are trying to do. I served this country 22yrs in the USARMY and Im proud of the TROOPS and what they have accomplished. NOw lets take a vote for who is and who is not PATRIOTIC in this country and the American people will see the real DEMS(SOCIALIST) in this country. After all these DEMS statements there are still people out there that DO NOT CARE about the TROOPS at all. Supporting the TROOPS is not supporting them to LOSE. There is not a troop out there that would support losing a WAR. |
|
|
Hard to tell buddy. will Hillary make the vote? who knows |
|
dustof. I was waiting to see if Mitt were going to be on Rush's show, looks like no, Rush has not mentioned Mitt. Looks like Mitt has made an enemy of Rush.
NeoCon: Are we sure that was the current Ms. Rudy who called on the cell during the speech? Might be the next one, remember Donna Hanover found she was getting the boot at a news conference by Rudy.
Folks, I think all the GOP candidates have big election problems. The question is will Hillary's negative polling numbers be enough to push Republican over the top? Hard to tell at this point. |
|
|
Bill: I will take ham, eggs and the waitress, over easy, please. |
|
|
yes, hugh, you alerting romney to the rush controversy is the same as romney being alert to the rush controversy. |
|
The great Red Eastern Washington tide now mixes with the cold Blue pool from Seattle somewhere around west of lake Sammamish instead of Lake Washington. Makes for a lot of purple prose in the Seattle Times. The Seattle PI is still royal blue.
|
|
OK Since I can't JUST make fun of Romeny here's what all of the other leading candidates would order:
RUDY When I was mayor of New York, I always ordered ham and eggs, and it was the most popular order in over 100 years of city management...
HILLARY I also ordered the ham and eggs, and I won't apologize for it now. However, I was misled into making that order. Would I order the same thing again? I won't say, but it's time to take that order away...
FRED I forgot what I orderd. The truth is, I haven't read the menu.
BARACK I wasn't in the restaurant, but had I been in the restaurant, I would not have ordered ham and eggs. I was always against this order.
MCCAIN We need MORE ham and eggs. None of the others have enough courage to tell you this, but I do because I don't give a crap. A dozen more eggs, please!
EDWARDS The important thing is that the poor people aren't getting their ham and eggs. The destitute in this country desrve their share of the meal. What's that? No, I'd like some lobster instead please. No, we're just talking about my personal order, now. |
|
Democrats want to do it in Iraq, sounds like some Pubs want to do it with illegal aliens. Pander to citizens of other countries illegally in our country in the vain hope they will vote for Republicans. Throw out such notions as the rule of law and citizenship, surrender and win!
|
|
..Sewage? Naaaawwwww...Just Bufobore dumping his kosroid ploppers here.
Richard:I'm getting concerned that if "my man" Rudy were in the cafe,his cell would ring and he'd talk to Missus Rudy for half an hour and still be sitting there when everybody was finished & gone..."Whuuuuut the hell...Where'd everybody go?...Waiter! MY food's COLD!!"
Guys,don't give me the Hunter...or Huckabee mantra.They can't beat Clinton.My alarm bells over Rudy's 'temperment' are making me look seriously at Mitt...But,as I said in an e-mail to Hugh this a.m.,I'm concerned that he doesn't FULLY GET the need for total aggressive offense on the Jihadist Scumbags & Iraq.I want to like the guy,but there's no time for namby-pamby eqivocation.
R.from Kent: Had an old college friend(PLU)who was from Alexander Street.Back in the '60's when I was a 'yoot. |
|
Here's what I believe is wrong with your analysis:
It's true as you say that a strong majority of Americans are for securing the borders. the problem is, only conservatives will actually vote for a President based on this issue. Independents and Democrats, while agreeing with you on the whole illegal issue, will not decide their vote because of it.
On the other hand, rightly or wrongly, a strong majority of Latinos believe this issue is biased against them, and raising it energizes them to vote, and to vote for Democrats. If Latinos ever vote in the numbers they could if motivated, the Dems will win Arizona, New Mexico, California, and even Texas, and not just in this election, but in the forseeable future,making it nearly impossible for a republican to get to the White House and guaranteeing a liberal majority for years to come. As an econmically conservative independent, I don't want to see that, and that I why I wish you and others would drop this issue, its a loser. But the damage may have been already done... |
|
|
WOW looks like I missed all the fun. Hey Richard how is the home front. |
|
Securing the border and enforcing the law is the only way we get to keep our rule of law, our representative Republic, and our Constitution. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
The so-called "top tier" will not get out the voters necessary for a GOP win. Increasing turnout is the key. Give people something to vote for. Not just the lesser of two evils. Won't work this time. People are fed up with the inundation of illegal aliens. They would come out in droves for the clear choice of D=amnesty or R=enforcement. They will stay home if they both equal amnesty.
There is a huge majority of American citizens waiting for someone to pledge to uphold the laws and secure the borders, let's ignore them some more.
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
MikeS, brilliant! Here are the sequels:
MITT I don't think I can put it to you any more clearly. I meant exactly what I said.
ARIANNA You want a bowl of soup and milk, right, Mitt?
MITT Thank you, Arianna, I believe in this cirumstance you best represent what I might choose under certain conditions.
---------
MITT I don't think I can put it to you any more clearly. I meant exactly what I said.
SEAN You want fried chicken and a Sprite, right, Mitt?
MITT Thank you, Sean, I believe in this cirumstance you best represent what I might choose under certain conditions.
-------
MITT I don't think I can put it to you any more clearly. I meant exactly what I said.
JACOB You want a mouthful of bees and a glass of cotton balls, right, Mitt?
MITT Thank you, Jacob, I believe in this cirumstance you best represent what I might choose under certain conditions.
|
|
beesh, that statement was classic Mitt. In the absence of the "phony soldiers" issue, would he have ever released such a statement? Of course not. Mitt was covering all bases as usual.
His poll numbers are collapsing because of just this kind of pandering. |
|
beesh:
Rush on his show said the original statement equated to Mitt throwing him under the bus. That's Rush, not me.
Romney's campaign choose the HuffingtonPost, not me. The HuffPost advocates violent overthrow of the US government via miliary coup. Tell me why Mitt uses this and Hugh fails to mention it while bailing Mitt out on the radio interview?
'The negative characteriztion' in the quote is a reference to Rush's remarks.
Here's the full text from HuffPost:
Now former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is weighing into the fray. In a statement to the Huffington Post, Romney's spokesman Kevin Madden offered the following on Limbaugh:
"Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion."
|
|
|
However, Hugh know better than to offer Mitt a cup of Java. |
|
richard_223 it is clear you are a spinmeister as well. Please explain with which part of this statement you disagree?
"The negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion.”
HuffPo and you are ginning up the controversy for your own ends.
HuffPo wants to sow dissension and you seem to be Fred's point man here. |
|
MikeS
Rolling in the floor laughing, that made my day!
All we need now is to see that in powerpoint presentation from. I suppose Mitt should check in with Hugh before opening his mouth, might save him some grief. |
|
Thanks for the kind words, but please don't use Mitt's cheesy statement to defend me. This guy (Mitt) has got to be the most generic candidate I have ever met. Can you see him at a restaurant?:
WAITER Can I take your order sir?
MITT I think that's certainly a possibility. Were I to order, I would choose food and something to drink as well.
WAITER Yeah, but what do you want?
MITT I don't think I can put it to you any more clearly. I meant exactly what I said.
HUGH You want a turkey sandwich and a cup of coffee, right, Mitt?
MITT Thank you, Hugh, I believe in this cirumstance you best represent what I might choose under certain conditions. |
|
...with this statement? With which part do you disagree?
“Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion.”
It is a preliminary response very generic with which it is hard to disagree. No mention of Rush.
This is a manufactured controversy by HuffPo to sew discord and spun by Fred supporters here. |
|
Jacob: Hugh does not want you to know about Mitt's connection to the HuffPost. That site had an article earlier this year advocating violent overthrow of the US government by the military, so why does Mitt send his spokesman their to throw Rush under the bus?
Mitt is falling in the NH polls; I think the voters have a good sense for phoniness in candidates and they are beginning to sniff Mitt out, and episodes like this reinforce my doubts about him.
Spin king that he is, Hugh will not be able to salvage this, its Harriet, the Sequel. |
|
NeoConScum writes: "Apologies to Mike S IF I got you wrong."
Check out MiukeS' reply to Briggsy re: Liberals want INJUSTICE
The kid's okay. We can disagree on Iraq, but be hace a common cause in other areas.
To paraphrase Romney's spokes person:
“There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one should dispute the fact that those who disagree with the war have the right to express that opinion respectly without Kosa-like blather”
|
|
Here in Mittland there is no need for reality. We can count on Hugh to tell us what reality is according to Mitt's latest focus group polling.
If you want someone who knows what they believe, not what they think you want to hear. Check out:
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
|
richard_223 writes: "Freed's my man" |
|
richard,
Mitt's dancing so fast to so many tunes that he's probably going to end up with a torn ACL. I didn't know that bit above about Mitt trying to cater to HuffPo at the same time as he's telling Hugh that he's solidly behind Rush.
I listened to the interview and got creeped out again by Mitt's pandering. His response to Hillary's $5000 proposal went back to those hoary old chestnuts, "we need to be concerned about our children and take care of them..." It was pretty sickening. There was no indication that he had any comprehension of the amount and growth of funding of "children's" governmental programs.
I'm sure he knows about them, but he was in full Mitt Pander Mode and just wanted to tell everyone how he cares about children. |
|
..Be back later.Funny,Mike,your 'monniker'is my real name & initial.You seem to have a brain attached to your spinal column,so welcome aboard.
I'll respond later...probably.Way too much windage,though.Sends my alarms buzzing,as it is very typical of kosroids infesting this good HH site.Apologies IF I got you wrong. |
|
In response to Dobson not supporting him, Fred said,"I'm not going to dance to anybody's tune."
Can you imagine Mitt saying anything like this? |
|
and/so/but writes:'But Romney is running into a pattern of trying to be so far ahead of these stories - Larry Craig, Rush's comments - that he (again) looks like a slick car salesman, willing to throw in a free set of something to close the deal.'
Great insight. Since Mitt does not know who he is or why he is running for President, he will be tossed to and fro by these kinds of episodes, if he trully had conservative principles he would fall into these traps. Notice how his numbers are sinking in NH, and if he does not win big there, he is finished. |
|
Briggsy wrote:
"Bush vetoes children's healthcare today."
No, Bush vetoed a plan to expand the rights of some individuals to live as parasites by stealing and looting from other individuals.
A child's healthcare is the responsibility of the only people that had any say-so in the decision to bring him into this world: his parents.
Nothing whatsoever justifies the insane notion that people should be allowed to have children and then push the responsibility for their care onto someone else. Doing so punishes one person -- the taxpayer -- for the actions of another person -- the parents who created the child; it punishes the taxpayer for an act over which he had no control, an act in which he had no participation, an act he was not consulted on and never agreed to. Punishing one man for the actions of another is the very definition of INJUSTICE.
If liberals passed a law that required one-half the population be enslaved and forced to work to provide food, clothing and shelter for the other half, and Bush vetoed the bill, liberals would describe it this way:
"Bush vetoes food, clothing and shelter for half of America".
Briggys, you're a looter who seeks the right to exist as a parasite off the efforts of others. You are morally no better than any armed robber or mugger. |
|
..A.M. is a morbidly fascinating exercise in witnessing appetite driven Leftoids sucking Righties into defending(in this case,Rush)positions or people.
MikeS:You're NOT a Lefty like I'm NOT a conservative.Errrr...make that Nefarious Neocon.
Guys...A little clue to the "Mikes" here.ENDLESS
windage blowing NOWHERE.Let's see...Bufobore would
jump in to defend a Righty?I think NOT.
MikeyS..You're using Keith Olberman talking points,Dude.Doesn't help yer case Boy-yo. |
|
60% of the troops via campaign donations do not support Bush’s Iraq war strategy? Do the Rush supporters think 60% of the military should leave the military since you think they are not REAL SOLDIERS? And what is a REAL SOLDIER vs. a non- REAL SOLDIER?
Capital Eye-| Assessed favorably this week by the war’s lead general, the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq appears to be causing a surge of another sort—and one that’s not positive for President Bush or the Republican Party. Since the start of the Iraq war in 2003, members of the U.S. military have dramatically increased their political contributions to Democrats, marching sharply away from the party they’ve long supported. In the 2002 election cycle, the last full cycle before the war began, Democrats received a mere 23 percent of military members’ contributions.* So far this year, 40 percent of military money has gone to Democrats for Congress and president, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Anti-war presidential candidates Barack Obama and Ron Paul are the top recipients of military money.
“People are saying now enough is enough,” said Lt. Col. Joyce Griggs, an intelligence officer who said she spent two months in Baghdad earlier this year, speaking for herself and not the Army. “If you’re a soldier, you’re going to do your job, do what you’re commanded to do. But that sentiment is wide and deep.”
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/the-other-iraq-surge
|
|
My main thought about this whole story is a profound awe at the level of stupidity democrats assume in their supporters. Then I read some of the comments and they are right on target.
You have a sham front group paid for by Soros, started by Hillary, plucking comments completely out of context, from a show where everything is recorded, and you still have people who have probably never listened to the show say, "Well, he says bad things about people who are against the war, blah blah blah." They have already changed their story twice. Now it is all about the "timeline", coincidentally parroted here. What this really does is make me wonder about what kind of lies are spread when these evil hacks go after someone who isn't as high profile, like judicial nominees for instance.
To top it off, a proven abject liar on the subject, Tom "Ace" Harkin, is one of the point men for the smear. I hate liberals as much as they hate George Bush. They must be defeated or the country won't survive. |
|
|
Hugh not only goes to bat for his patron Mitt here, he also manages to bring up the topic of gaffes - obliquely about Rudy, but really about Romney. I'm actually sympathetic to Romney here; the news cycle is very fast. But Romney is running into a pattern of trying to be so far ahead of these stories - Larry Craig, Rush's comments - that he (again) looks like a slick car salesman, willing to throw in a free set of something to close the deal. |
|
I went and hit the button before checking for errors.
That's Mitt, not Mick.
|
|
"Why hasn't Hugh read the first statement that the Romney campaign issued about Rush?"
Because Hugh is so deep in the tank for Romney that he will dunk the entire GOP and make a lie of the entire "Parties Matter" chapter of his own book (If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat) to benefit Mick.
It's sad to see Hugh reduced to a singular hack like this, and I hope he wakes up before he destroys himself completely. |
|
The statement does come across as Romney assuming Rush did call those who disagree with the war phony soldiers. But the important thing is that Rush thought Romney threw him under the bus.
Big mistake to get on the wrong side of Rush. |
|
However ...
If anyone takes Rush's slam on Romney without looking at the facts, they are doing just what we accuse the Democrats of doing with the MSM. Rush is simply wrong, here. Nowhere has Romney thrown Rush under the bus. In the blurb posted on Huff n puff, it was the blog that put the "Romney Slams Rush" spin on it. Nowhere in the statement is Rush mentioned. For Mitt to come out now when so much has been made out of something that was never said, is absolutely appropriate. Have we learned nothing from the last 20 years of Democratic lies and deceit? Their playbook has an entire chapter on "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it's the truth". Find out the facts. You'll be amazed. |
|
|
Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy? |
|
Virginia Patriot is right... this is all damage control. I haven't paid attention in a while but is Hugh still trying to act like he has not officially picked Romney? What a shill. Hugh has reduced himself to a fraud and a farce. Seriously, once again I ask all radio stations with Hugh's show run a "this a paid advertisement for Mitt Romney" before during and after his show. Better yet cancel it and put on someone else.
the dirL |
|
We'll find out if you're right or wrong about the Hillary machine shortly. I think you're wrong, but who knows?
If it is unlikely that a Republican is going to win in 2008, that makes this primary season even more important in terms of the future of Conservative ideology. If Rudy wins the nomination but loses the general, this will strengthen social conservatives in the long run. (In the same way, Dukakis' loss in 88 helped pave the path for centrists to take over the Democrat party in 92, which allowed Clinton to be the nominee.) On the other hand, a loss by either Mitt or Thompson in the general will have the opposite effect: the social conservative movement will be weakened, and the party in general will, I predict, move more to the center on social issues. I know it sounds Machiavellian, but if you truly stand for social conservatism, the best thing that could happen to you is a Rudy nomination. (This assumes, of course, my main point, that no Republican is going to beat Hillary this time around.) |
|
This is Much Ado about not much.
1. Rush has been defending himself quite capably for the last week (as usual). He is also milking this for ratings which is smart.
2. The statement by the Romney aid does not throw Rush anywhere. It merely states the obvious, that it is a free country and you can take any position that you want (especially if you served in Iraq).
3. As Rush explained it, he was referring to people who claimed to have served but had not served, aka "phoney soldiers", pretending to be former soldiers who apposed the War. However, that has gotten lost in the feeding frenzy.
4. Romney will state his own position. |
|
Mike S,
I think the famous "Hillary Machine" is overhyped. She would get as many states as McGovern if the Repub could get their act together. (Yes, I'm aware this is totally anti-beltway wisdom)
Romney is totally screwing it, in my opinion, because he doesn't know his way around the conservative world and conservatives DO! Guilani doesn't pretend to know, so no one expects him to. Romney is selling himself as a conservative and doesn't, or apparently, doesn't know squat. Why would he go out of his way to side with Media Matters? The mind boggles.
Romney needs to lose the charts and graphs and stop talking like a CEO. We are not hiring a CEO. He needs to find his gut. If he doesn't he's finished and then it will be between Fred and Rudy and if Fred can't make it, we are screwed. |
|
...with this statement? With which part do you disagree?
“Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion.” |
|
And Fred is still Fred. Romney is lightyears ahead of Fred in what matters. Although, I do give Fred credit today.
MikeS - each of the top tier have an equal amount of flip-flopping when you look at their records, unfortunately. Romney is the most socially conservative of the bunch. |
|
that I'm actually going to defend Romney, but here goes. As Richard pointed out, that statement was quoted by Huffington Post; that doesn't mean it was intended for them. Also, this was a written statement from a Romney spokesperson, not from the man himself. He gave his views on Hugh's show.
There is all sorts of evidence to suggest that Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper, and if you prefer Thompson to him, more power to you. Personally, I don't think either of them have a chance against the Hillary machine, but then neither does anyone else, so you might as well be for whichever candidate best represents your views. But I don't think this little episode should be that significant in the larger scheme of things, that's all Im saying. |
|
BUT in all fairness, maybe he's been busy "Working" and getting things done, and just hasn't spent a lot of time sitting around listening to talk radio, or thinking about how far-righters think.
Perhaps we should just judge him on his policies, and stated goals (along with his accomplishments.) He might require a little house-breaking, if you know what I mean. ;) |
|
|
if Romney even knew about the statement by Madden. I think Romney needs to do A LOT more damage control. |
|
|
To the Leftists, Dem leadership in Congress and the Dem Prez candidates, lying and smearing Petraeus, Rush, and even poor W by calling them betrayers, liars, Hitlers as the Kos-Moveons do routinely does not register well by even the most apathetic voters. One wonders if Rudy will defend Rush. Mitt and Fred did. McCain will not except on a nuanced angle. It reminds one of how the stupid Dem Reps were foiled by Ollie North. Smearing O'Reilly and Rush and Medved will not divide the Pub BASE. It rallies them and the Dems already hate and smear without many facts so it gives the RIGHT red meat to finally unite. |
|
thatcher writes: The Romney-Huffington post is devastating.
A little context.
It was not a post. HuffPo only quoted Kevin Madden from some source. We don't know that Madden was even responding a HuffPo question.
I don't see any reference to Rush Limbaugh here:
"Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion."
|
|
talisman writes: well, that figures
Just came to post or did you want to talks? |
|
Mike S,
As I explained before, I am a Fred vote. I was very much looking for a back-up vote as my husband and myself have been active in the grassroots for 30 yrs and we have conservative groups that we have input with, and it is early.
The Romney-Huffington post is devastating. It shows an utter lack of conservative understanding and underscores the rap on Romney. Namely, that he isn't really a conservative, because, as anyone knows, Huffington is full of left wing wingnuts.
You tell me. How could he not know this? Contrary to most posters, I want to know how this could happen.
What next Daily Kos?
Like I say, Romney was the back-up but .......I want an explanation, not a call-in to Hugh. Who wrote the damn thing and then who signed off on it.
I'll probaby never get any of these answers but I still think Romney should explain. I'd rather that than nothing. |
|
From Huffington: In a statement to the Huffington Post, Romney's spokesman Kevin Madden offered the following on Limbaugh:
"Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion."
Uggh.
PS. Hugh, your comments section is getting about as feral and disjointed as that of Little Green Footballs. You may want to think about what you can do, in terms of limiting number of postings per commenter, etc that would serve to achieve what you see as being the purpose of your comments section. |
|
|
Rush Limbaugh is easily the skeeviest of all republican noisemakers, so it makes perfect sense that the candidates for top GOP Misanthrope would back this bully's outrageous lies and anti-troop slurs. |
|
My estimation of Romney is way down and Thompson is way up over this.
This is an issue that speaks to the candidate's core values and real-world understanding. Romney's first instinct is to throw Rush under the bus. Thompson's is to defend Rush.
That's an important distinction between these two candidates.
To think that a major Republican candidate has no understanding of Rush Limbaugh's career-long support of the military or the possibility that a leftist media group my be attempting to smear him...well, what does that say about Romney as a conservative or a political leader?
And what does it say about Thompson, who blistered the smear against Rush?
And what does it say about Hugh Hewitt, who failed to reveal Romney's first statement (via a spokesman) on this blog entry?
It says, Hugh is right -- let the bias of the reporter be transparent, then the reader can make up his own mind about what to make of what was written. |
|
|
MikeS, I think you're missing the point. Obviously thatcher would vote for and support Romney over ANY Democrat. It's just that vs. Thompson or Guiliani, thatcher would not now support Romney. |
|
|
I am sacking out. Later... |
|
|
Damage control is what this is. Mitt was blowing with the wind with his first statement. Now Hewitt is trying to tie him in with Fred Thompson's correct assessment of what was going on. Transparent attempt to get the manure off the candidates shoes after he's stepped in it. |
|
MikeS writes: FWIW, I would like to see Hillary defeated, but it just aint gonna happen.
MikeS, I may be lkeive you are wrong on the war. You may think I am. No reason to give up on the core issues. You give up, Hillary wins along with Harry Reid and nancy Pelosi. Not a pretty picture.
The Iraq war is winding down. Petreas now has the right policy in place. There is not much else we can do at this point. In 2008, we need to get back to common cause. |
|
But it doesn't matter who I am for as regards how the election will come out.
Your statement:"Your opposition of the Iraq war does not cause anyone to question your patriotism" Nice of you to say, and I know you mean it, but you're wrong, and that's the whole point of my beef with Rush- he HAS questioned my patriotism. He has either said or implied on numerous occasions that I hate the troops, that I hate America. That's why I believe he did mean that all soldiers who oppose the war are phony.
FWIW, I would like to see Hillary defeated, but it just aint gonna happen... |
|
But it doesn't matter who I am for as regards how the election will come out.
Your statement:"Your opposition of the Iraq war does not cause anyone to question your patriotism" Nice of you to say, and I know you mean it, but you're wrong, and that's the whole point of my beef with Rush- he HAS questioned my patriotism. He has either said or implied on numerous occasions that I hate the troops, that I hate America. That's why I believe he did mean that all soldiers who oppose the war are phony.
FWIW, I would like to see Hillary defeated, but it just aint gonna happen... |
|
|
|
|
It is really annoying. Or am I the only one who has a hard time reading dark read on scarlet? |
|
MikeS writes: "it will be you people's fault, becuase of your arrogance about this Iraq war and your opinion of those who are opposed to it."
Your opposition ot the Iraq War does not cause anyone to question your patriotism.
Let's drop this stuff and find Common Cause ro "support economic conservatism, low taxes, small government." The alternative is putting Pelosi, Reid and Hillary in power. See you don't want one party to dominate.
You want to keep up the spitting match or do you really want to "support economic conservatism, low taxes, small government."
|
|
thatcher:
Mitt's late conversion to conservatism shows in this incident, he has no feeling for what matters to conservatives and this will be one of many future gaffes, Hugh won't be able to save him from all of them. Good we are seeing this, that's what the campaign is all about.
Throwing Rush under the bus is not the route to the GOP presidential nomination. |
|
|
Are you seriously considering not being for Romney over this issue? I don't like Mitt myself, but shouldn't his stands on a variety of issues like Iraq, the economy, immigration, etc. be the deciding factors for you, rather than whether or not he came to Rush's defense fast enough? |
|
This entire article is about damage control by Hugh.
I just went back to read it again.
Too little, too late. The Romney campaign should have known better unless it's full of people who are not plugged into conservatives. That's just what it's shown me. |
|
You still dont get it.
I don't like Hilary.
I won't vote for Hilary.
But Hilary WILL be President.
And in part it will be you people's fault, becuase of your arrogance about this Iraq war and your opinion of those who are opposed to it. |
|
Let's ask MikeS to reconcile this:
1. MikeS writes: "Say hello to Madam President Hilary."
2. MikeS writes: "I am not a "man of the Left"
Now tell us if you will vote for Hillary.
|
|
You have to pick one or the other. You cannot logically pick both.
MikeS writes: "Say hello to Madam President Hilary."
MikeS writes: "I support economic conservatism, low taxes, small government." |
|
|
Don't kid yourselves. This is really a boneheaded move for a campaign who is trying to prove that the candidate has ALWAYS been a conservative. |
|
I listened to Rush today. He said that Romney "threw him under the bus" by Romney's comments to Huffington. It's in his transcripts, I would presume. He wasn't too happy with McCain. either.
I can understand why you'all would be so skeptical. I was astonished, as well. Huffington? Jeesh! |
|
I don't see any reference to Rush Limbaugh here:
"Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion."
|
|
To call Rush, tomorrow, and kiss his ring a bit?
If he's not, he's not smart enough to be President. |
|
MikeS man of the left pure and simple...
Which person right odf center have you ever votes for? |
|
Here's Mitt's spokesman throwing Rush under the bus on the Huff Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/28/romney-criticizes-limbaug_n_66363.html
Here's Rush from his show:
Here' from Rush's transcipt:
"I didn't talk about this last week, but Mitt Romney issued a statement much like he issued against -- who did he throw under the bus? Oh. Larry Craig. He issued a statement: That's reprehensible what Limbaugh said, horrible, whatever it was he said -- and then later in the day somebody from his office called our office. "We just found out that this is a smear, and Mitt will say this if he's asked about it." He hasn't been asked about it, so his statement still stands. McCain sort of halfway threw me under the bus by saying "if" what Limbaugh said as reported is correct, blah, blah, blah, then it's disgusting and horrible and so forth and so on."
Think Mitt is going to get support from the Rush Republicans? |
|
MikeS writes: The problem with York's article is his explanation of the self-editing of Rush's comments contradicts Media Matters
You not a man of the Left? Yet you take Media Matters word for anything except a grain of salt?
|
|
Rush has taken attacks from the left before and this is no different. Don't worry everyone, he'll come out smelling like roses again.
Mark
FuzzySnake.com
|
|
Sorry Mr. Beesh, it's like Ali continuing to play rope a dope against Foreman in rounds 13, 14, 15..."Sorry Mr. Ali,you're too late! The fight's over!"
You guys had your chance. The Democrats are an incompetant group of buffoons who don't deserve to ever win an election, but they will win this one in a landslide. It's too late already. There is nothing any of us can do or say to change this. Say hello to Madam President Hilary... |
|
MikeS writes: Wednesday, October, 03, 2007 10:02 PM
to answer your question, Beesh...
I don't know. The problem with York's article is his explanation of the self-editing of Rush's comments contradicts Media Matters
|
|
MikeS writes: WThe problem with York's article is his explanation of the self-editing of Rush's comments contradicts Media Matters/
You are not a man of the Left, but you take Media Matter's word to have any degree of credibility?
|
|
Your argument is lost on me. So the "Betray-us" resolution is different because Rush is a private individual, not an organization? Was John Kerry an individual? How about the Right's personal attacks against Cindy Sheehan; was she an individual?
What's truly boring and annoying is your defense of this blowhard who constantly, not just this one instance, misrepresents the truth in order to spread his agenda. Most conservatives I know and respect are thoughtful people, but when you allow yourselves to be led by the nose by classless charletons like Rush and Ann Coulter, you truly look like idiots. |
|
MacLeod writes:"Dems like a toddler desperate for attention seizing upon a stray piece of nonsense and repeating it as long as it gets any kind of reaction.
Great characterization!
Let them keep swinging so we can rope-a-dope
|
|
The idea that the two might be equivalent is in fact the whole point of the assault, but the differences are obvious and telling.
MoveOn has been attacked for something that the organization said, not in passing, but in huge type in full-page ads in major newspapers. It's worth noting, however, that the anti-MoveOn Senate Resolution did not mention the organization, much less any of its employees, directors, or sponsors, by name. The resolution merely expressed "the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, commanding general, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn(s) personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."
Rush has been attacked for something that the Democrats and fellow travelers would like others to believe he said. They've extracted a stray phrase from its immediate and well-established general context, and tried to turn it into something completely other than what Rush said or would say. The attacks on him have been attacks by elected leaders on a private individual - a kind of mediatized version of a bill of attainder.
The whole thing is almost as shameful as its boring. The left is now making the ultimate threat: to annoy the right to death, in the fashion of a toddler desperate for attention seizing upon a stray piece of nonsense and repeating it as long as it gets any kind of reaction.
|
|
I don't know. The problem with York's article is his explanation of the self-editing of Rush's comments contradicts Media Matters explanation for it. Somebody is obviously wrong here.
But you've got to understand why I should be suspicious of Rush's motives for using the term "phony soldiers." For years, he's openly questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with him on the war. For years he's implied that the troops in Iraq are completely unified in support of this war, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar. So I'm suspicious, why shouldn't I be?
To answer your other question, I am NOT a man of the left. I support economic conservatism, low taxes, small government. But I am very much against the Iraq war, and I won't vote for anyone who's for it. |
|
Psampo writes: Mitt to the Huffington Post
Saying it does not make it so. produce the link.
|
|
richard_223 you link to Huffington Post said nothing a bout Romney. Put up or shut up.
Thatcher? Whwre the post you are referring to? |
|
|
|
|
I'm a Fred chick. If push came to shove, I was really looking at Romney but how could anyone want to be loved so much that he would respond to the Rush controversy by sending a post to Huffington. Gawd. How could you not immediately get the whole storm and what it means? Romney is too out of touch. |
|
What in the heck was he thinking? I'm glad he at least tried to fix it. It may hurt him with Rush, which can be fatal.
Although, Rush was totally wrong about Romney and Larry Craig. Romney was 100% right to dump Craig as fast as he could. Rush compared it to Rumsfeld and Gonzales, but that didn't wash. |
|
|
and hug a tree or something |
|
Nah...
That's not what it's for.
I'll leave the ......er....deviation... to the lefty sodomites..... |
|
|
I just predicted one. Personally, I don't think the Dems will be much better than the Republicans on these issues. As far as the Democrats ignoring evil, Bush empowered Iran by destroying the Sunni govt. in Iraq. Bush empowered North Korea by attempting to isolate them. The Republicans have increased dislike for us around the world by supporting illegitimate, non democratic regimes like Saudi Arabia. Who's ignoring evil, anyhow? If I do vote democrat in the next election, it will be with this motto: "it couldn't get any worse." |
|
Mike before you and béésh ná’oobalí get into a spitting match, read what this was all about:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQzZGJkM2E1NWI5NmNjMTAzNTQ4YTk1ZDRhZTMyNWY=
On Monday evening, September 24, Rush Limbaugh was struck by a story that appeared on ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson. “A closer look tonight at phony heroes,” Gibson said in his introduction to the report, which was about men who claim to be veterans but are not. In the story, reporter Brian Ross discussed two men who claimed to have served in wartime, possibly to receive free veterans’ hospital and other benefits. |
|
Is a bigger issue today, especially in a new media environment. Instead of talking about ideas and policy about these candidates, we instead ingest these "gotcha" moments from the blogs and even the MSM and then regurgitate them back out again. For instance, the CPAC conference a few months ago I heard Mitt give one of the best speeches he's ever had http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Mitt+Romney+CPAC+speech.
However, instead of the headlines saying Romney had a great speech and the specifics about it, everything is about Ann Coulter and her Edwards reference, and much of the references to Romney was that he gets dragged in with her comments. Now granted this is quite a few months ago and you could make the case that no one cares about a great speech then...but things have not changed. More of the headlines about Fred are about what he doesn't say in his speeches, his demeanor, what his wife is wearing, etc. What else did Rudy have to say other than he made a mistake about where exactly he was?
I get the media, no one cares about the ideas, those don't get ratings or clicks, etc. ...I get it. I also understand that a candidate is more than just about the "ideas" or policies. But it's rather sad when someone like Hillary becomes a "vaunted" frontrunner to take the presidency, mainly because she's screwed up the least. Then again, it's equally sad that many Dems aren't necessarily voting for Hillary..but against Bush and the GOP voting against Hillary. |
|
Mitt threw Rush under the bus quicker than you can say Larry Craig.
What's the truth? Mitt's first statement to the Huffpost, or the way too late call to Hugh's show? No way to tell, as Mitt has no core beliefs, he just goes whatever way he thinks the wind is blowing. And why the release to the HuffPost; it advocate a military coup in the US:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/general-pace-you-can-sa_b_61785.html
Why does Mitt associate with them? And why was he Mitt comes lately to the Hugh show instead of going on Rush's show earlier in the week to express support.
I expect lots of last minute call from Mitt for Hugh to keep the wheels from falling off this campaign. Mitt does not know why he wants to be President and it shows in this misbegotten episode. |
|
Mike Said: I am not a democrat, but I am opposed to the Iraq war, like a majority of Americans.
Mike, if you are not a Dem then the rope-a-dope discussion does not concern you. It is not opposition to the war that disqualifies Dems. It is a long history of ignoring evil until it bites us all in the butt.
On the other hand you did call for a Democrat landslide and said you were a man of the Left, so maybe the rope-a-dope discussion really does apply. |
|
I was an English/Jounalism major. Mind if I touch up your Subject Line....?
Bush vetos nanny-state cradle to grave entitlement something for nothing socialist bill.
There. Better. |
|
This is a test for reading comprehension:
Dem/libs, what is Hugh's article mainly about? |
|
|
Briggsy wants middle class entitlements |
|
|
Don't worry. Hugh will attack Thompson's family soon enough. |
|
Get a load ot the photo of one of the potential First ladies of Foxnews front page.:
http://www.foxnews.com
Jeri Thompson: 'Hard Not to Be Defensive'
Wife of GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson talks about age difference between her and her husband.
|
|
This story will now also be about Romney.
He threw Rush under the bus with his first statement and Rush slammed him for that today.
Romney lost a lot today.
Why hasn't Hugh read the first statement that the Romney campaign issued about Rush? |
|
Hugh said: "Rush is in no hurry to end it as it reflects well on him and poorly on Senate Democrats"
Not only that, but it is an excellent "Rope a Dope opportunity.
Look at Mike's comments above as an example. Swing away, Dems it just redound to the public perception that Dems are not to be trusted to defend the United States. |
|
Mitt to the Huffington Post:
"Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion."
Makes you wonder, what makes the Huffington Post more worth of communicating with Mitt than YouTubers? |
|
|
and his history of declaring that anyone who is opposed to the war also hates America. (One of many examples: two years ago, this message appeared on his website: "ATTENTION DEMOCRATS: DAMN RIGHT I QUESTION YOUR PATRIOTISM") Comments like these are why the "phony soldiers" gaffe struck a nerve in both the left and independent minded Americans who want us out of Iraq. It's the arrogance of Rush and the rest of you that agree with him that not only are you right, but the rest of us must be "fake" or unpatriotic which will, in part, result in a Democratic landslide in 2008. This is the real "bell weather" issue, not freedom of speech. You have only yourselves to blame. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, conservatives, it tolls for thee. |
|
|
and his continual attempts to question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with him. (Two years ago this message appeared on his website:"ATTENTION DEMOCRATS- DAMN RIGHT I QUESTION YOUR PATRIOTISM" It's a history of these types of comments which is the main reason why Rush's "Phony soldiers" comment struck such a nerve with the Left and independents who are opposed to the war. This IS a bell weather issue, but not for the reasons you think. In part because of the continuing arrogance of this man and all of you others who believe that your support of the Iraq war is the only patriotic response, there's going to be a Democratic landslide in 2008. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, you conservatives, it tolls for thee. |
|
And, Hugh, I don't think Rush keeps on this story merely because, as you say, "it reflects well on him..."
It is much bigger than that; it is much bigger than Rush (Rush knows this). It is about you and me and all Americans and our freedoms -- and the blatant attempted intimidation by our Senators and Congressmen (albeit it will backfire and fail -- but merely that they tried is monumental). |
|
Get after the Democrats to free up the Missile Defense Money to protect us from Iranian Missiles.
Hugh, this guy has got to LEARN HOW TO MAKE NATIONAL "HEADLINES." GOT TO. |
|
I wholly agree that the news cycle is condensed, however, the Rush Limbaugh/Democrat fake "phony soldier" matter is no ordinary story. It is, and will be, a bell weather issue. We're talking here freedom of speech, and Government intimidation on those freedoms in the political arena. This is chilling and unprecedented in our history.
This should make Hillary and the Dems PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER 1, and Mitt needed and needs to appreciate this.
|
|