Rush Limbaugh Is Only the First Target of Obama’s ‘New’ Politics

[shagdrum]

Rush Limbaugh Is Only the First Target of Obama’s ‘New’ Politics
Paul Ibrahim

Barack Obama, Democratic leaders and the media have made clear their rejection of George W. Bush’s “old” politics. You see, President Bush did not launch assaults on private citizens, nor did he ever label anyone as “unpatriotic” for disagreeing with him. Thus, Obama and his friends are now effecting the change they promised. Welcome to their “new” politics.

It began in December. When economically versed Republican senators had the courage to halt a multi-billion dollar giveaway to auto manufacturers and the United Auto Workers, it became clear how Democratic leaders intended to exercise their majority power.

At the first sign of resistance, the same people who only months ago hailed the infinite virtues of dissent swiftly implemented its demonization. Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm called the Republican dissenters’ behavior “un-American.” Democratic Congressman John Dingell, who has received close to a million dollars from the auto industry and has extensive family and financial ties to General Motors, declared that the Republican senators had “unpatriotically” opposed the bill.

And that was before the elected Democratic Congress and president were even inaugurated.

From what we have seen since they did take office, Obama and top Democrats have left no doubt that their message of unity is literal – unity, around leftist ideals of course, is going to be achieved either through voluntariness or through coercion. And what better way is there to purge opposition than by eliminating Rush Limbaugh from the picture?

Some background is necessary. About 16 months ago, Limbaugh criticized anti-war propagandists who invented stories about having served in Iraq, appropriately labeling them “phony soldiers.” Top Democrats at the time alleged that Limbaugh had called real troops “phony soldiers,” faked extreme anger, and 41 senators, including Obama, signed a letter labeling Limbaugh’s words as “unpatriotic.” Four months ago, Obama launched campaign ads falsely asserting that Rush Limbaugh had spoken of Mexicans in a degrading manner.

Yet to left-wing cohorts, Rush Limbaugh does not only hate the troops and Mexicans. Apparently, he also hates America.

That is what the media reported when Limbaugh, some days ago, expressed his hope that Obama’s pursuit of big-government liberalism fails. Journalists, if we may stretch a word, took Limbaugh’s non-controversial comments and put them at the service of their favorite president since the last Democrat to occupy the White House.

CNN’s Rick Sanchez, for example, promised to air “the entire Rush Limbaugh commentary” on the subject, but decidedly played just enough of the audio to take Limbaugh’s language out of context. Sanchez then wondered in faux-puzzlement, “I guess it’s OK to say, look, I want liberalism to fail, because I’m anti-liberalism. But saying I want Obama to fail, is saying essentially in what is one of the most precarious times in our nation’s history, you want our country to fail, isn’t it?”

Yet disgracefully, Sanchez had cut off the audio of Limbaugh’s “entire” commentary right before Limbaugh said the following: “Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?”

The fact that this systematic operation to intimidate and demonize Obama’s opponents was launched so soon after his inauguration is tremendously perturbing. What is even more alarming is that Obama is not only a member of this campaign – he is the driving force behind it.

On Friday, Obama declared that “you can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Within 100 hours of taking office, the president of the United States proceeded to single out a private citizen for his mere dissent, effectively expelling him from the government’s marketplace of ideas, and with him the millions of listeners of the same political stripe. Not even President Bush, whom we are instructed is the quintessential embodiment of divisive politics, ever managed to approximate such behavior in eight years of attracting the most vile of personal and political attacks.

Welcome to the politics of hope ‘n’ change. Obama’s startling attempt to hang Limbaugh’s scalp on the wall is a warning that the new ruler does not want unity – he demands it.

 

[shagdrum]

from here...

...One doesn’t make points at all about bipartisanship by explicitly attacking another partisan voice, no matter how much one disagrees with it. By naming Rush and attempting to sideline him, Obama lifted Rush’s profile and practically anointed him his opposition. It demonstrates that Obama still has no sense of his office, nor of “post-partisanship”, regardless of his endlessly empty rhetoric on the subject.

George Bush never attacked Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, or other voices of the rabid Left by name. If he ever went on the attack against the left-wing media, he kept the attack general and broad, rather than specific. Bush may not have been the most media-savvy of our modern presidents — in fact, he may have been the worst at it since Nixon — but he knew enough about his office to understand that part of its strength would keep him somewhat above the partisan-pundit fray. Obama hasn’t figured that much out yet.

Thanks to this attack, Rush not only has his own megaphone, but he gained everyone else’s for a brief time. He became a national story, gained national coverage, and in general got a million dollars’ worth of free publicity. And Rush knows how to use it to his advantage, as he showed:

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.​

Not only could Rush underscore the fact that Obama got petty, Rush also had an opportunity to blast away at Obama’s economic plans on a larger platform than usual. Thanks to Obama, Rush just doubled his effectiveness. And also thanks to Obama, Republican leaders on Capitol Hill might do something that they haven’t done in years, whatever Obama’s paranoia might tell him: they might take Rush’s advice.

Anytime a man in a position of great power attacks someone with significantly less power, it lessens the greater man and raises up his opponent. The American President is, thanks to the office, the most powerful man in the free world. If he’s worried about any political pundit so much that he has to attack him personally, it shows weakness, which is exactly what Obama cannot afford.
​

 

[foxpaws]

"you can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done"

That is all I ever see of Obama's quote - obviously there is more, this is taken from a longer statement - does anyone have the rest of the statement? Everyone seems to point to an article in the New York Post by Charles Hurt... And he only uses that small bit out of context.

 

[torquemonkey]

Ask and you shall recieve...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0123200...zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm

By CHARLES HURT, BUREAU CHIEF

Last updated: 4:16 pm
January 24, 2009
Posted: 8:13 pm
January 23, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting.

"I will trump you on that."

Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.

"We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly," Obama said during the meeting.

Republicans say the $825 billion price tag is too big a burden for a nation crippled by debt and that it doesn't do enough to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes.

"You know, I'm concerned about the size of the package. And I'm concerned about some of the spending that's in there, [about] ... how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives," House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said.

"How does that stimulate the economy?"

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: "There was a lot of agreement in that room about the notion that we're facing an economic crisis unlike we've seen in quite some time ... that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets."

Gibbs disagreed with those who called the meeting window dressing.

"The president is certainly going to listen to any ideas," he said.

"He will also go to Capitol Hill the beginning of next week to talk to Republican caucuses and solicit their input and their ideas."

With Post Wires

churt@nypost.com

 

[shagdrum]

So "bipartisanship", according to what Obama seems to be saying, is for Republicans to throw out their convictions and agree with Obama (which most of the RINO's in Washington already have). That is not bipartisanship, it is appeasement and surrender. Not suprisinging, Obama is effectively "redefining" the definition of bipartisanship; can you say "equivocation"? More deciet from the messiah as well as blatant arrogance.

Here is what Limbaugh had to say:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:

If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town.​

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.​

 

[torquemonkey]

I had to look this info up. That know-your-enemy idea.

I think I'll pick this up. It looks like a good read.

$8...

Amazon.com: Rules for Radicals: Saul Alinsky: Books



http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm


Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
By Craig Miyamoto, APR, Fellow PRSA


To paraphrase some sage advice, "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer." If your business or organization ever becomes a target of radical activists, it will be extremely helpful to know what strategies of attack will used against you. Short of having spies infiltrate their organization - a practice that is sure to be found out and exposed to your discredit - it would help to study their methods.

Known as the "father of modern American radicalism," Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely taught today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory - no matter what.

Grassroots pressure on large organizations is reality, and there is every indication that it will grow. Because the conflicts manifest in high-profile public debate and often-panicked decision-making, studying Alinsky's rules will help organizations develop counteractive strategies that can level the playing field.

Governments and corporations have inherent weaknesses. And, time and again, they repeat mistakes that other large organizations have made, even repeating their OWN mistakes. Alinsky's out-of-print book - "Rules for Radicals" - illustrates why opposition groups take on large organizations with utter glee, and why these governments and corporations fail to win.

Large organizations have learned to stonewall and not empower activists. In other words, they try to ignore radical activists and are never as committed to victory as their opposition is committed to defeating them. Result? They are unprepared for the hailstorm of brutal tactics that severely damage their reputation and send them running with their tails between their legs.

Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

 

[foxpaws]

Mr Monkey - any association with Alinksy will automatically brand you as a devil worshipper, commie sympathizer, and child molester... Even if you just read it to see what he is about. Apparently you can't even read him and leave untainted by his very words.

Although, as an aside, Karl Rove is a master of these rules. You don't have to be a 'liberal' radical to see how these can work superficially with any segment of the population. There are plenty of 'conservative' radicals who have used these tactics.

But, over time, these rules will degrade, as the populace understands what is going on. Somewhat like crying wolf.

Read him - Rules for Radicals is an interesting study - flawed, but interesting. Very '70s.

And, thanks for the article - I am still interested what Obama said before and after the You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done, statement.