Wednesday, January 28, 2009
|
|
The Gingrey "Clarification"
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
12:23 PM
|
Rep. Phil Gingrey has issued a statement to "clarify" his "misunderstanding" with Rush Limbaugh. Apparently, he feels that his comments "read much harsher than they actually were intended."
I am not going to comment on the substance of the controversy, as Rush is infinitely more qualified than I to do that. But I would like to point out that the episode is, in my view, emblematic of the ongoing behavior of some elected Republicans, who seem more willing to "take on" the grassroots of their own party than they are to confront the opposition.
Look, having worked on Capitol Hill, I do understand how frustrating it can be to do the best one can and still get hammered by "friendly fire." But in the end, as the hoary old cliche goes, politics is about addition, and any politician worth his salt knows one "adds" nothing by attacking those on one's own side. It's Rush's and Sean's and the rest's job to hold the GOP's feet to the fire, and it should be taken no more personally than, say, the penchant of Democrats to try to expand government. It's just what they do. They don't exist simply to disseminate favorable talking points for the GOP leadership (even though we all know the leadership badly needs such services).
Part of the problem with at least some elected GOP'ers is a certain tone-deafness when it comes to PR, even within their own party. This is a remarkable manifestation of that phenomenon -- and a timely reminder, once more, of how the inside-the-beltway bubble makes it seem less risky to vent frustration with the conservative grassroots than, say, with Nancy Pelosi's reflexively left wing shock troops.
Rep. Gingrey has apologized. As he should.
Update: Today, Jim Geraghty succinctly skewers the GOP for "employing an operative class that is much more skilled at skewering intraparty rivals than at taking the fight to Democrats in a difficult environment." Exactly -- but I fear that the problem isn't limited to the "operative class" . . . it's endemic in the elected/political class, as well.
|
|
we must not insult the great fat pill popping messiah of the far right. We certainly wouldn't want that?
All this shows is that your elected officials are more afraid of Limbaugh than they are Obama and now Obama knows that for SURE.
if Obama's strategy is to continue to throw elbows at Limbaugh it will continue to elevate Limbaugh to the position of defacto party leader with rush's comments being more important than that of the RNC.
This will be hilarious indeed. |
|
|
...as an opposition party. Too many Republicans have become defacto members of the new one-party, imperial Big Government. The democrats are in control, they will dictate from now on. |
|
Gingrey was just on Rush and they have kissed and made up. All is well between them. Gingrey agrees he put his foot in his mouth yesterday and They both are fine now.
|
|
|
Sans your opening cheap shot at Rush's past addiction,I find myself agreeing with you on the elevation of Rush's status.However in your zeal to camouflage your leftist agenda you make the common ignorant mistake of lumping the GOP and conservatives together. |
|
Uh...first of all I am Republican. so go shove your octegenrial leftist mantra crap. Bush was the biggest leftist there ever was.
Second aren't we all under the big tent and believe me I wish it were otherwise.
And lastly I have no love social conservatives or Rush. Until social conservatives are driven from the temple "we" are all taking orders from that big fat pill popping ignoramus.
Obama's not trying to marginalize Rush-he's trying to make him the defacto voice of the GOP. And so far his plan is working. |
|
|
..........Odumbo condems Rush yet not a word about Hamas! Coward! |
|
"Odumbo condems Rush yet not a word about Hamas! Coward"
Obama has said a LOT about Hamas. Do you mean that he should have put it in the same sentence or paragraph as what he said about Limbaugh? Wouldn't you then complain that he didn't mention North Korea in that same sentence?
You condemned Obama yet not a word about Pelosi! Coward! |
|
Rhett was right. You,Miss,Madam, M.s., are no Lady !! But Mr.Gingrey of Georgia, is a Gentleman!I tell ya.. those southern men butter my biscuits !!
|
|
...In my opinion, it "was" and "is" perfectly appropriate to hope policies and/or the "Implementer" thereof FAIL that ARE REGARDED economically and socially destructive to our way of life and/or democracy. Obama's views appear a direct spiral into Socialism, thus, if this is his endeavor, I too hope he fails.
BHO's attack on Rush is an unequivocal affront to "Freedom of Speech"!!!! It only took Barack "Putin" Obama four days from his inauguration to attack Rush, thus, expeditiously beginning his apparent agenda (Fairness Doctrine) to substantially diminish the "First Amendment of the US Constitution".
In context, Rush's comments "were" and "are" an honest lightning-rod as to the realism of BHO's "hope 'n change". Consequently, Rush's audacity to candidly gentrify the "same old bullsh$$" is sincerely appreciated. |
|
|
.............hearing Odumbo cowering to the Muslim world for all the world to see! Coward! |
|
|
...........fell it's ok to kill innocent civilians in Pakistan? Coward! |
|
....I have been reading your posts for the past many days and your ".....style of vindictive, vituperative dishonesty" is astounding. You chronically condescend absolutely every single conservative poster in a very vicious/venomous way. Apparently, civil debating is not an intellectual behavior that is part-of your mental repertoire. Oh well, as my Grandmother always said....."you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".
Scarlett, take down the drapes and make yourself a new dress: you will feel soooooooo much better. |
|
Frank, I told you two days ago the socialcons are gone already. Sure, there may be a few hangers-on left, but for the most part, they are gone. As are the rest of the cons. Now you and your fellow Rockefellers own it. The GOP is yours. It's time to man-up, shut-up and move on.
BTW, that you apparently consider Rush a socialcon or equally undesirable is just more proof that you are a Rockefeller. I look forward to the sweeping victories of the GOP in 2010 and then 2012 when you will once again hold the executive and legislative branches all to yourselves. All hail the Rockefeller Party. Their motto: "Big Government, on the 'Cheap' " |
|
are you saying that social-cons have finnally been driven from the temple? Really? Can you confirm this cause if so this a day in which we can all rejoice!
the wicked witch is dead!!!!!!!
Please verify your statement about there being no/few social conservatives left in the GOP. I would love to believe you but as you are arguing like a liberal-no facts-only bloviating-your post can only be taken for what it is; utter pap. |
|
why can't you stay on topic? just wondering. Isn't there someplace else where you can address those issues? You pulling a soros troll tick-attempting to change the topic of thread.
Seems that even the liberals are staying on subject.
Food for thought. |
|
I will gladly verify this. Just as soon as you verify what I asked of you two days ago.
Please explain how being against Roe v Wade got Obama elected and tell all of us who in the GOP is demonizing gay people. I look forward to your response. Be sure and cite your sources so that they can be VERIFIED.
Best wishes.
|
|
|
I did try somewhere else (daily kos) but was kicked off the site in 5 min. All I asked was "Why does Odumbo allow his relatives to live in poverty, while he rakes in millions from book royalties"? So I figured I'd ask the liberals who get paid to come here. Am I off topic? Yes, but it's only temporary. |
|
|
My 3:29pm post should say "liberals who get paid to come here and pretend to be republicans" Sorry. |
|
this is how being against Roe V. Wade got obama elected; perhaps these figures will show you that the kind of demonizing that the far right does to anybody who does not follow their social agenda did not appeal to broader base of voters.
You said Obama was the most left wing supporter of Abortion and this is what you got...
from the right leaning Politico:
"According to national exit polls, the Republican brand lost with the two largest voting blocs in the country: women and moderates. Self-described moderates — who make up 44 percent of the electorate — gave Barack Obama a 21-point advantage over John McCain. Women gave Obama a 13-point advantage (56 percent to 43 percent). The GOP won the male vote only 49 percent to 48 percent, a negligible difference. Voters under 30, the future of both parties, gave Obama a landslide victory (66 percent to 32 percent). Additionally, the GOP lost the majority of voters in key suburbs — which lean to the middle — across the nation, as well as nine states formerly considered “safe” Republican states in 2004, including Indiana and North Carolina"
And you question about who is demonizing gays is absurd-if you can't see that for yourself it s pretty clear you don't get much.
But here's a few
Pat Roberson
Michelle Malkin
Dinesh D'Souza
Denis Prager
Doug Giles
And more than a few posters here on townhall.
Please avail yourself to their websites for recent commentary on the issue.
Bye. :-)
|
|
|
I'm affraid posting demographics of the voter percentages does not ansewer jimPA's question about Odumbo's Roe v.s. Wade stance winning him the election. |
|
|
the point is these are the people who broke for Obama because the gOP tactic of polarizing issues-such as abortion failed. If you can show otherwise please do. |
|
|
looks like you've got Frank pegged! Good job! |
|
|
Frank still did not answer the question, he cites poll #'s sure, but nowhere in those polls do they mention Roe V Wade. |
|
|
Jeez,a couple of months ago when you called yourself Pat Liberal you were unabashedly left.Now what exactly is a social conservative? Is it like an Italian American or an Afro American.Are we now to divide and catergorize conservatism into fragments? I don't think so.It's conservatives then Republicans and rinos and the rest and I will leave them to you to name them as you please. |
|
pat liberal?
Assumption are unbecoming but typical. |
|
If you took the time to view or read the entire context of the comments made by Rush and not just the one sentence that everyone is Erroneously making an issue of (as the Liberals ALWAYS do), you would realize that he (rush) wants America to succeed but he wants Obamie to fail based on his campaign promises and ULTRA LIBERAL VIEWS/INTENTIONS.
For example, look a the first to Executive orders
1) Gitmo - Giving Maranda rights for war prisoners who were plotting or fighting against America....and giving them American rights when it comes to due process...What due proceess!!?? They aren't citizens, they are prisoners of war. Butt out and let the military handle it!!!
2. Promoting Abortion in other countries. For all you LIBERAL IDIOTS, how is this different than going to war and having our soldiers die overseas (which you are sooo opposed to). Its still a life, but OH I SEE...you dont get the body count in the news wrt to the abortions....out of sight our of whatever mind you have.
Fricking MORONS!!!! |
|
|
Who the hell knows why people voted the way they did. Was abortion an issue? I'm sure for some it was and others it wasn't. Can I show otherwise? no. And neither can you Frank! That whould be like me saying to you " People broke for Odumbo, NOT because of GOP policy but because he's black and that made them fell good". I f you can show otherwise plewase do. |
|
|
It was great to hear Rep. Gingrey come crawling on his hands and knees to apologize to Rush today. Great stuff. It just demonstrates the power that El Rushbo holds as a radio talk show host. |
|
The polling you site says NOTHING about Roe v Wade. This is not evidence of your assertion that being in favor of overturning Roe got Obama elected. Also, exit polls are notoriously inaccurate, so even if there were something in the polling about Roe, the polling is not reliable.
As for the conservatives you named, please provide their statements (or citations to their statements) wherein they "demonize gays".
So far, Frank, you are letting me down. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing: ie- asserting facts not in evidence. |
|
I did some of your leg work for you, Frank. I started with researching Michelle Malkin allegedly "demonizing gays". Couldn't find a single instance of demonization. She did disagree with some of the things some gay people were doing, but there was no demonizing because the last time I checked, disagreeing with someone isn't demonizing. It seems you are demonizing Michelle Malkin.
This leads me to asking you what your definition of demonize is? Is it demonizing if you disagree with someone's behavior and say so? For example: I disagree with the Dems who are enacting socialist policies. Is that demonizing the Dems. Socialism is against my secular faith in the founding documents of the U.S.A. Am I a religious bigot demonizing defenseless Democrats? Is this a hate crime? Am I demonizing you by exposing you as a poseur? You've admitted you hate, or words to that effect, conservatives. Isn't that demonizing, too? Please give all of us your definition of demonize.
Since Michelle, Rush and Ann C. are like the top three most hated conservatives by the left, I am not going to waste time looking into Pat, and Doug, and Dinesh and Dennis. If there's nothing on Michelle, whom you named, then I am sure there's nothing on the others. But let me know if I am mistaken.
|
|
Of course you don't like the numbers presented- Why would you? On the other hand you present no real counter argument or figures of your own even coming close to proving what you wrote.
Case closed.
Of COURSE you didn't find anything in the Malkin collumns dear. Its pretty obvious which side of the bread you like your butter on. Of course you would see Michelle Rush and Coulter as reasonable. That tells me all I need to know about you. Talking to a ditto head is pretty much a waste of time.
And since you are asserting "victim" status we're done. |
|
LOL. That was a REALLY lame response, Frank. Especially after all your bluster the last few days about driving out all the social conservatives blah, blah.
What's this bogus talk about liking the numbers? They don't prove your point. End of story. You are correct. I am a conservative. Never said otherwise. Ad hominems are not an argument or facts, Frank. You are the lefty Rockefeller who has been blowing smoke about all the socialcons and how they are demonizers and ruining your party but you don't have the facts to back up one thing you've said. What I will tell you is that I know hundreds of conservatives and each of them knows hundreds and all the reports I am getting are that they are ALL through with your GOP. So, as I said earlier, stop whining about us Bible thumping, God fearing, Gun toting, budget balancing little folks. The GOP belongs to you and your fellow Rockefellers. Take a valium and chill. Your future victories are in the bag.
BTW, you need to read more carefully. I am not claiming victim status, but I guess you had to come up with some kind of red herring to try to distract folks from your unsupportable claims.
I sure did get a kick out of your responses though. Thanks for the entertainment.
|
|
You must be joking.
Anyhoo Obama called you bitter clingers out for the whole WORLD to see and subsquently you lost the election. We rockefellers types didn't marginalize you-Obama did.
Now if you would do just do us the simple favor of starting your own party the rest of us would be much happier. You too, you can cling to your bibles and talk about abortion ALL DAY LONG.
So if your "anectdotal evidence" based on the "reports you get(funniest line in your sappy tirade)" are true(which I seriously doubt) about the chain letter of conservatives you speak to it is a happy day.
Please let me know where I can donate to this new party of conservatives to makes sure it becomes a reality. I will do everything in my power to assist you morons in finding a home outside the GOP. We can set up a reserve for you bitter clingers right outside Roanoake with all the Regent types. Certainly you will all be much happier there. |
|
Frank, like I have been telling you for days now, we ARE gone. Whine all you like about anecdotal evidence (which is all you ever produced, BTW), your ad hominems, clingers and all your other grievances. LOL You sure are good at revealing your own bigotry while accusing others of being demonizers. It remains to be seen if another party is established. For now all we happy to be clingers and thumpers and budget balancers (I was refering to our own budgets, not the GOP/Fed budget. Again you reveal yourself. You are a Dem, not a Rep at all).... as I was saying we simply aren't voting for the Reps anymore. Period. Go back and READ my posts to you over the last 3 days. You may then understand.
Tirade? No, no. As usual, you misunderstand. I am laughing while posting to you. I'm not angry. Being free of the GOP has liberated me from the angst you apparently feel, hence your tirades about demonizers and purging same. LOL
Good luck, Frank and don't forget to take your valium. |
|
"I'm not angry"
Sure you're not dear. Best Laugh I've had all morning.
And funny how the new class of victims likes to talk about bigotry. You never heard so many white males concerned about bigotry before. One would almost think you were a liberal. Now that is funny.
Please return to clining and being bitter; simply put-its what you do best and just look at what it gotten you so far! You're doing a great Job son. Keep up the good work.
please Jim prove yourself right; start a new party and run conservatism as is; please show us just how effective you will be. Arguing with me proves you have not left the big tent at all.
And I will be more than happy to continue to "insult and demonize" you and your "kind"-clearly you seemn to have an appetite for it. :-) |
|
|
|