One great thing about being completely out of touch with popular culture is that, on the off chance I actually have a great idea, I get to enjoy by surprise the excitement of validation when I discover that someone else has already thought of it.
This happened recently when I hit Dan and Bruce up with the following concept:
I already know of a couple friends of mine who voted for Obama and are regretting it. With the abominable “stimulus” bill, the outrageous pork-laden budget, and the way they’re going after private citizens who dare question them (sound familiar, plumbers?), I imagine these won’t be the last who suffer Obama’s Remorse. So, I figure, maybe we should start a support group.
I wasn’t sure what form this group could or should take, so I asked Bruce and Dan what they thought. Bruce suggested I set up a group on Facebook. Instead, I did a search, and lo and behold, there already is a group! I haven’t contacted the originator of this group, but I think the young man from California who started it will soon see an uptick in members. I hope the group is cathartic for the members, and folks can feel free to join without feeling embarrassed.
Pass on the link to your friends who voted for Obama. Have them put it in their favorites if they haven’t yet felt regret for the mistake they’ve made. They’ll be looking for it again, I imagine, before too long.
We’ll keep you updated as to the membership numbers…
-Nick (Colorado Patriot) from TML
Who are the private citizens that Obama is attacking again? Rush Limbaugh? Joe the Plumber? However any reasonable person could define ‘private citizen,’ neither of those men would fit the bill. Obama’s a private citizen if Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen.
Drama queens.
Lets see, Joe the Plumber was on his front lawn tossing a ball with his kid when Obama walked up. Joe had the nerve to ask a question that caused Obama to let slip with his true goal. As a result, the private man had his life thrown into the national spotlight by democrat operatives, some of whom eventually had to quit their jobs because of their unethical behavior. I’d say this private citizen was definitely targeted by Obama and his campaign.
As for Rush, he is a well know person, but he holds no elected office, seeks no elective office and happens to do his job well enough that he has rating that no one on Air America could ever hope to have. But though he is well known, he is still a private citizen.
It seems to me that Obama and his crew are looking very, very juvenile right now. The campaign is over, it is time to govern, but Obama continues in campaign mode. Let divert attention from the problems at hand the and Obama’s failure to address them properly by attacking a radio show host. Very sophisticated. If he spent as much time vetting his appointments he might have a cabinet in place sometime before 2010. And btw, he’s doing a great job of making the world love us: lets throw our allies, the Poles, the Checzhs and the Israelis under the bus. Kiss Russian ass, and get the finger in return. I’ve noticed how much the mullahs in Iran have unclenched that fist. This man is incompetent and it shows.
damn, you guys have to do something about this filter!
LOL…I’ll pass this on to the few of my Democrat friends who will admit any remorse over their vote. Many won’t right now, regardless of the current state of affairs the hope is still there. Undying devotion…like Elvis fans…that just won’t give up. It’s still early in his term, I can’t wait to see the site in a few years.
2 — That ‘democratic operative’ that threw Joe the Plumber into the national spotlight… who was that again? The way I remember it, nobody knew who Joe the Plumber was until John McCain said his name about a hundred times in one of the debates. After that, Joe the Plumber got an agent and was giving interviews and going to campaign rallies, trying to capitalize on his fifteen minutes, but he’s still just some little ol’ private citizen, according to you?
And Obama shouldn’t ‘attack’ private citizens, well okay. He’s just supposed to let these people capitalize on their celebrity and their platforms without a response? Joe the Plumber and Rush Limbaugh are allowed to say whatever they’d like, and Obama should just ignore it, is that what you’re saying?
No, Levi, the president shouldn’t attack private citizens. Did Bush ever did that? Did his team? Check the record.
And if memory serves, a heck of a lot more people “capitalizing on their celebrity” (as you put it) attacked W than attacked his successor.
Levi,
Two comments and you still haven’t managed to get close to comprehending the meaning of “private citizen” as it is being used in this context. “Private citizen” is being used to distinguish “public citizen,” as in a “public official.” There is an undeniable difference between Obama making public statements about other government officials (i.e. publicly-elected Republicans in Congress) and their opposition to legislation he has proposed, and picking and choosing individuals with ZERO direct involvement in enacting (or blocking) his agenda for criticism and condemnation. Based on your logic, a citizen is no longer “private” if he becomes well-known or famous solely because Obama (or Gibbs) have attacked them.
“He’s just supposed to let these people capitalize on their celebrity and their platforms without a response? Joe the Plumber and Rush Limbaugh are allowed to say whatever they’d like, and Obama should just ignore it, is that what you’re saying?”
Yes, Levi. He SHOULD ignore it because as President, he should take his case to the American people and to the voting members in Congress that he has to convince to implement his agenda. But he’s a vindictive, thin-skinned liberal who doesn’t have enough faith in his own ideas to allow them to be challenged in any formidable way in the media or the “marketplace of ideas.” It shouldn’t matter what Rush or Joe the Plumber says (or the size of the group listening)–Obama still has a majority in Congress to do what he wants them to do (which is his job)–but the criticism angers him personally and he can’t leave it alone. He has to respond with petty, snide attacks.
And of course you will deny it, but if Bush had gone after a prominent liberal radio personality (if one existed) or some journalist like Keith Olbermann, you would have joined the shrieking chorus denouncing “government intimidation” and “censorship.” Of course, the same line of thinking has no place when you’re talking about Obama and Rush even though Obama has the power to implement “localism” through the FCC which is a threat to Rush continuing to have the platform that he presently enjoys. THAT’S the most important issue when you’re talking about a PUBLIC official attacking a PRIVATE citizen–the power that the public official has to take action against the private citizen. Rush has no weapon against Obama but his opinion, but Obama will eventually try to take that away from him (and has the power to do so).
If you can’t see the difference, you’re either completely dense or a liar.
Levi’s unwavering refusal to see the significance and danger of the President (and his communications staff) attacking individuals in the media reminds me of liberals’ attacks on Kenneth Starr during the Clinton years. They denounced everything Starr did in the course of his job as “Independent Counsel” as presumptively illegitimate because he wasn’t “independent.” Since Starr was a conservative and a Christian, he was disqualified from investigating Clinton because you can’t have a Republican prude investigating a Democrat sex addict.
Just as Levi is either stupidly (or knowingly) defining “private” as non-famous, the liberals defined “independent” as devoid of political affiliation (i.e. the right to vote) and non-judgmental of people who can’t control their sexual impulses. Nevermind that “independent” in “independent counsel” meant INDEPENDENT OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. The idea that Starr had to be INDEPENDENT of the Justice Department to effectively investigate the President (who is IN CHARGE of the Justice Department and could have fired Starr if he were not “independent”) was just way too complicated for them. So they dumbed it down to mean something meaningless, repeated it over and over, and idiots like Levi adopted it as a mantra and slapped it on their bumper stickers.
At Paul Begala and James Carville’s level, it’s corrupt, cynical, propaganda. At Levi’s level, it’s just idiocy and an inability to think for himself.
Comment filtered. Please release!
No, Levi, the president shouldn’t attack private citizens.
What is the attack, what does that word even mean to you? Obama’s administration isn’t allowed to even speak his name? What is the problem with a statement such as this, which you posted earlier:
“I was a little surprised [at] the speed with which Mr. Steele, the head of the RNC, apologized to the head of the Republican Party.“
That is an attack? How so? I would call that TALKING POLITICS. Gee, who would have that! That’s a pretty common sentiment in liberal circles, it’s one that I share, am I guilty of ‘attacking’ Rush Limbaugh as well?
Pffft. For how much the Republican Party likes to think of themselves as the tough guys and of liberals as big sissies, it sure doesn’t take very much to get you guys screaming like little girls.
After Obama won the election, I was afraid you guys were going to be pretty effective in your opposition. But if your next act after getting embarrassingly swept out of power is to hyperventilate and get all defensive about Rush Limbaugh, I was obviously giving you far too much credit. It seems like you can’t hang yourselves fast enough.
Did Bush ever did that? Did his team? Check the record.
Are you kidding? If you didn’t support the war or Bush’s torture policies your patriotism was called into question in all sorts of ways. I’ve been told that I’m a traitor, that I hate the troops, that I blame America for everything, that I want to coddle the terrorists, etc., etc., etc. I don’t need to check the record, it’s not like that wasn’t just 3 or 4 years ago. I remember it well.
And if memory serves, a heck of a lot more people “capitalizing on their celebrity†(as you put it) attacked W than attacked his successor.
Well, W was a terrible President that almost everyone despises. It kind of makes sense that a more popular person receives fewer ‘attacks,’ doesn’t it?
#9: “For how much the Republican Party likes to think of themselves as the tough guys and of liberals as big sissies, it sure doesn’t take very much to get you guys screaming like little girls.”
Levi, Rush’s job was to criticize liberalism and Obama before the election. That is still his job after the election. That is what he does for a living. That is why he is paid. Obama was elected to implement his agenda by getting Congress to pass his legislation. That’s his job regardless of what Rush says or who is listening. But he’s whined and complained about Rush since he got elected, telling Americans that they “can’t listen to him” if they want to “get things done.” If you can’t identify the “screaming little girl” in this scenario, it’s because you’re willfully obtuse.
“Are you kidding? If you didn’t support the war or Bush’s torture policies your patriotism was called into question in all sorts of ways. I’ve been told that I’m a traitor, that I hate the troops, that I blame America for everything, that I want to coddle the terrorists, etc., etc., etc. I don’t need to check the record, it’s not like that wasn’t just 3 or 4 years ago. I remember it well.”
Well, if you remember it so well, it shouldn’t be difficult to cite to a single documented occasion when Bush or his communications staff called you a traitor, told you that you hate the troops, condemned you for blaming America for everything and accused you of coddling terrorists, right?
So, let’s have it, Levi. Any examples to cite? Or are you just a “screaming little girl,” upset because other PRIVATE citizens judged your views and conduct that way?
Unfortunately this pattern of the government attacking private citizens pre-dates the Obama administration.
Ask Elizabeth Gracen (coincidentally audited after she talked about an afair with President Clinton) Paula Jones (slandered by Carvill) and of course Monica Lewenski (called delusional and lied about, under oath no less, by the President)
And of course Rush (Who President Clinton blamed, along with ‘talk radio’ for Oklahoma city)
And in the Reagan and Bush years all those… wait, still waiting for Levi to cite any occurances of those happening.
Levi seems to be unaware that the Democrat Party is running paid attack ads against Rush, soliciting donations to erect an anti-Rush billboard in Palm Beach, and having their operatives fan out to falsely accuse Rush of being hateful and call him a drug-addict because of past abuse he has been treated for… which is very hypocritical from an administration led by an admitted cocaine user. And no, Rush is not the head of the Republican party. He is a leader of the conservative movement. It’s dishonest of the administration to make that claim.
And they are picking this fight in an overt attempt to distract media attention from their economic incompetence, radical agenda, and the corruption that sickens their entire party. Tim Geithner testifying in front of Charlie Rangel about getting tough on tax cheats was pure gall.
And does anybody else get really fed up with these simpering, weaselly parsing of words… “It’s not really an attack”… that leftists use to avoid taking responsibility for what their party is doing?
Levi- If you want to see a drama queen, look into your mirror.
This meme is such a lie: If you didn’t support the war or Bush’s torture policies your patriotism was called into question in all sorts of ways. I’ve been told that I’m a traitor, that I hate the troops, that I blame America for everything, that I want to coddle the terrorists, etc., etc., etc. I don’t need to check the record, it’s not like that wasn’t just 3 or 4 years ago. I remember it well.
In reality, liberals of all kinds ran down the street, pointed behind them and said “THEY called me unpatriotic!”. This is a case study in personal projection, not political persecution.
#13
WTF
If memory serves me correctly you yourself had a post calling Reid and Nancy P traitors.
My conscience is clear. Wrote in Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton BAYBEEEEE!!!!!
Obama has every right to call Rush Limbaugh anything he likes. Obama has an open microphone 24/7 to attack, needle or set the record straight. Obama can have his speech writers dedicate themselves to bashing Limbaugh and Obama can read those speeches off his handy-dandy pocket teleprompter. Obama can organize a Limbaugh Squad that will make his life miserable. Obama can use the Main Stream Media to hound Limbaugh and send him running.
Obama can trade pork with Harry Reid, John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Patrick Leahy, Henry Waxman, Alcee Hastings, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, et al and back them in attacking Limbaugh. They can drag Limbaugh before Congress.
Meanwhile, the Obama approval rating called the Dow Jones Average continues to tank and our savings and home values are trashed. But we should not be concerned with that. We should all hate Limbaugh for trying to scratch the porcelain perfect skin of the Messiah. It’s not nice to question the Messiah.
Hey! Why doesn’t the Messiah just work a flood or something and drown Limbaugh? That would impress the littleletterpeople to no end and they could wear his ruby slippers and skip down the yellow brick road and meet goofy friends and just have a whale of a fairy tale time.
I think Limbaugh has riled a lot of people with his butt-boy comments. Until the Obamanauts dare to question the Obamessiah a little bit, they are pretty much butt-boys. Meanwhile, the certified tax cheat Secretary of the Treasury has come up with only one plan: go after tax cheats. Only in the Land of Obama could you find such a tale.
#14: gillie, even if GP had a post calling Reid and Pelosi traitors, unless Bruce or Dan were serving as President of the United States at the time, your example has absolutely no application to this discussion whatsoever.
In reality, liberals of all kinds ran down the street, pointed behind them and said “THEY called me unpatriotic!â€. This is a case study in personal projection, not political persecution.
That’s too silly to address, really. I’d try to re-write history if I was responsible for something as embarrassing and disastrous as the Bush administration, too.
But really now, you don’t want to call me un-American? What if I told you that I thought the war in Iraq is one of the biggest military blunders in the history of the world, that it was conducted mostly for the benefit of Dick Cheney’s friends and business partners, and that every American that has died in it has died for no reason?
Couple years ago any one of those comments would have been met with accusations of treason and troop-hating. What would you call it now?
SeanA, thanks for getting the thread back on track… we can both probably also recall two occasions where Bush43 did just the opposite of what some think Obama is doing to RushBlow.
In the immediate wake of 9-11, Bush 43 made strong statements about how the attack on the US by radical Islamic jihadists should NOT, SHOULD NOT, translate into public or private animosity against Arab-Americans, Muslims or the followers of Islam in our land. He made it clear that America wasn’t that kind of Nation… even though dark clouds began forming in some of the recesses of our land. It didn’t take; no wholesale burning of masques or Islamic cultural centers.
Additionally, during the 04 race against Kerry, there were 4-5 occasions when Bush 43 was asked if being against the War in Iraq was fertile ground to question a person’s patriotism… like with Kerry. He was strong in his rejection of that approach and name calling and said you could oppose the WOT and be a patriot. And he “didn’t question the patriotism of Kerry and others shouldn’t either”.
During the 08 debates, some on the farRight and some in the press tried to goad McCain into saying that Obama was unpatriotic because he opposed the War in Iraq. McCain stomped that into the ground repeatedly by saying he didn’t think oppostion to the war was unpatriotic and that Obama was a patriot.
For some here to suggest that Bush or McCain played the same game that Obama and his govt team are now doing is just plain old wrong.
Look, they can bash away at RushBlow all they want; hell, I’ll pop the popcorn because it is illustrative of what’s wrong with America. But they ought to do it as a political campaign act from outside the WH… not one encouraged and probably designed in part by govt officials inside the WH. There’s a huge, fundamental difference and it’s why people like Bush and McCain often chose not to remark on something or someone who was in the cross-hairs at the moment… it was because –get this Levi & gillie– it was UN-presidential and did great dishonor to the office.
(I hope this makes it through the filter)
“Couple years ago any one of those comments would have been met with accusations of treason and troop-hating. What would you call it now?”
I’d say it makes you a conspiracy theroist and an idiot. But I repeat myself.
#19: “But really now, you don’t want to call me un-American? What if I told you that I thought the war in Iraq is one of the biggest military blunders in the history of the world, that it was conducted mostly for the benefit of Dick Cheney’s friends and business partners, and that every American that has died in it has died for no reason? Couple years ago any one of those comments would have been met with accusations of treason and troop-hating.”
Couple of years ago? Levi, you’re a troop-hating, un-American traitor NOW. By the way, I’m not the President of the United States, nor his Press Secretary.
I’d say it makes you a conspiracy theroist and an idiot.
I second that. I’d also he’s a leftist bigot who doesn’t believe that helping brown people establish a democracy isn’t an ideal worth fighting for, and someone who dishonors good men and women who gave their lives and limbs to make it so by treating them as ignorant victims.
Oh, and maybe also a nincompoop who is incapable of making an analysis in realpolitik, but can only chant the mantras fed to him by left-wing media and websites.
Am I getting warmer? (The Earth isn’t, FWIW.)
Levi, I would follow Bush’s lead and not question your patriotism nor your right to dissent.
But on this line, “… it was conducted mostly for the benefit of Dick Cheney’s friends and business partners, and that every American that has died in it has died for no reason….” I’d call you a liar and coward. But then, you’d have for soulmates fellow liars and coward Democrats like Thos Jefferson and James Madison.
And, of course, the most of the loons at DailyKos and HuffPo.
#19: “it was conducted mostly for the benefit of Dick Cheney’s friends and business partnersâ€
Mostly, Levi? Why “mostly?” Why not “completely?” Or “totally?” Aside from the fact that Cheney and his wife gave millions and millions of dollars to charity during his Vice Presidency, I’m sure Cheney engineered a fake war, enlisted the aid of 45 other countries to topple a dictator, and unnecessarily knocked down buildings and infrastructure just so he and his pals could make a few bucks rebuilding all of it. And I guess helping the Iraqi people set up a democratic form of government (complete with women’s suffrage) was just some cynical cover for his evil get-richer-quick scheme, huh? Yeah, sounds like you’re really on to something there, Nancy Drew.
Not that the coordinated attacks on Limbaugh was really the point of my post (remember, it was about regrets for having voted for The One), but since it was picked out of what I wrote and ridden down into the ground, I’ll explain calmly and slowly (for Levi and others) why it’s not good that the Obama White House is orchestrating these attacks:
Rush is a non-elected private citizen. A popular, incredibly successful one, yes. One who can defend himself (he certainly doesn’t need me to do it for him), yes. One with his own microphone, yes. But a private citizen nonetheless.
Gibbs, Emanuel, Obama himself, are all paid by you and me and (to an even greater extend, due to his higher tax bracket) Rush. They are using their official positions to malign and attack Rush, a private person, and taxpayer. This is a guy who’s literally paying these people to go after him. That’s what’s wrong.
If Carville and Olberman want to attack Rush, that’s cool partly ’cause that’s their job. But Obama et. al., work for and are paid by Rush (and Joe the Plumber and you and me) to do what? Govern. Not attack us.
–oh, and as for W–
You remember Cindy Sheehan? Did Bush EVER say even one thing about her, even how ugly and nasty she was toward him?
Mostly, Levi? Why “mostly?†Why not “completely?†Or “totally?†Aside from the fact that Cheney and his wife gave millions and millions of dollars to charity during his Vice Presidency, I’m sure Cheney engineered a fake war, enlisted the aid of 45 other countries to topple a dictator, and unnecessarily knocked down buildings and infrastructure just so he and his pals could make a few bucks rebuilding all of it. And I guess helping the Iraqi people set up a democratic form of government (complete with women’s suffrage) was just some cynical cover for his evil get-richer-quick scheme, huh? Yeah, sounds like you’re really on to something there, Nancy Drew.
I said mostly because I meant mostly. Part of it was that they thought it was going to be a great political victory at home to roll through Baghdad in glorious parades with all the WMDs they were so sure that Saddam had.
It was about 75% wanton greed and corruption, 25% political calculation. They might have pulled it off if they had a plan beyond ‘Invade Iraq, Be Greeted As Liberators, Profit.’
In time, you will all come to know this.
#27: “It was about 75% wanton greed and corruption, 25% political calculation.”
Now, are you absolutely sure, Levi? Is that your final answer? No possibility of it being 83% wanton greed and 17% political calculation? Doesn’t your estimate ignore the fact that 13-17% of it was obviously about sparking a world-wide evangelical Christian apocalypse (i.e. WW III)? And what about Cheney’s xenophobic, bigoted sub-plot to exterminate all Muslims and blame it on the Jews? There’s no way that wasn’t at least 5% of it (more likely 7% once the REAL TRUTH comes out). And quite frankly, the fact that you didn’t figure in at least 1-2% for Cheney’s obsessive desire to impress Jodie Foster leaves you with no credibility to speak of.
However, I have to admit that I do agree with your statements concerning Cheney’s motives as to the political pageantry he was expecting to enjoy while still VP. The fact that he never realized his dream of riding through Baghdad on a float while sitting on a saddle strapped to Hussein’s rotting carcass in a crescendo of pro-American jingoism will surely be identified in his memoirs as his greatest failure as VP of the United States.
Comment filtered again. Please help!
Try coming back when your testicles drop.
Then you should have no problem telling us WHO in the Bush Administration told you that, right?
As to your hysteria about Iraq, if Cheney were that calculating, why didn’t they just put some WMDs over there to “find”? Why did two bipartisan investigations conclude that Bush didn’t lie?
Speaking of profitting from the war, what about Sen. DiFi? How about Hillary’s holdings in Honeywell and Raytheon? Don’t you think Rep. Murtha benefitted? I could go on, of course.
Jeezus! How old are you?
#30: “As to your hysteria about Iraq, if Cheney were that calculating, why didn’t they just put some WMDs over there to “findâ€? Why did two bipartisan investigations conclude that Bush didn’t lie?”
Don’t count on getting answers to those pertinent questions, TGC. The other basic, fundamental question that idiots like Levi can’t answer when it comes to all of these ridiculous accusation against Cheney, Bush, and Rove is “WHY?” Why on Earth would Dick Cheney decide one day to put such a dastardly EEEEEVIL plan like the one Levi describes in motion (even if he could)? Why would Cheney conclude that the best way to make lots and lots of money (to add to the millions he already had) is to cavalierly start a war on the other side of the globe with a Middle-Eastern dictator in which thousands of American soldiers would likely be killed (as in any war)? How is it possible for a man like Dick Cheney (who, by the way, has a wife and daughter who clearly ADORE him) to pursue such a convoluted money-making scheme that requires the participation of the UN and 45 other countries? WHY would he do any of this? Isn’t it just a tad more reasonable (and sane) to assume that Cheney became wealthy and successful by AVOIDING perilous business plans like this one?
Oh wait, I forgot! Levi made it clear that they “might have pulled it off if they had a plan beyond ‘Invade Iraq, Be Greeted As Liberators, Profit.’” There was also, of course, the crucial monkey-wrench in Cheney’s plan: “those meddling kids.”
Ignorant fools like Levi either won’t answer the “WHY” question, or if they do, their inevitable answer just confirms how deluded they are. Because if the answer is just, well,…he’s EEEEEVIL, they are no longer describing an actual person. Their beliefs depend completely on Dick Cheney being some cheesy caricature of a villain stroking a persian cat in a 007 or Austin Powers movie.
Ugggg! This filter is giving me the blues! It’s obviously eeeevil software produced by some sinister Halliburton subsidiary.
#31
Exactly. One would think that if it was “blood for oil”, one would invade Canada, Mexico and/or Venezuela and save the money it would cost on transportation. One would also think that if it were about oil, we’d be drilling in ANWR by now.
Unfortunately, logic is not on the side of dumbasses like Levi who sullies the his namesake tribe just by opening his cake hole.
And if the libbies like Obama were so opposed to “blood for oil”, why on earth were they so supportive of their leftist European allies and UN bureaucrats who were taking billions of dollars in bribes and oil to look the other way at Saddam’s rampant imprisonment, torture, and outright genocide?