Projection

Projection, in this case, means taking your own flaws and projecting them onto others. For an example, take John Hawkins' latest article.

Additionally, conservatives tend to think liberals are merely stupid or emotional, while liberals tend to view conservatives as evil -- and liberals use that belief to justify lying about conservatives. After all, if you lie about someone who's evil to keep them from doing bad things, couldn't that be considered virtuous? You may disagree with that, but liberal politicians, bloggers, and journalists live by that rule. Any lie told about a conservative, even one that liberals know isn't true, will be uncritically repeated ad nauseum by the Left until the point it becomes politically disadvantageous to do so.

I should note that Hawkins includes a link to substantiate his assertion that Conservatives believe Liberals are dumb and emotional while Liberals believe Conservatives are evil. That link leads back to his own blog. I can't knock it; I do it myself on occasion.

I'm not sure I believe that myself. I think that there are plenty of Conservatives who believe that Liberals want to destroy America, want America to suffer, because they believe that a suffering America will give them power. I think this because I've heard them say it.

The overall subject of this article is how do Liberals lie about Conservatives. It's hard to write about this subject in a way without doing some self analysis at the same time. Because of course I am a liberal, and I don't think we lie about conservatives nearly as much as they lie about us. So I'll just note that of these 7 ways liberals lie about conservatives, I've seen conservatives utilize all 7.

Looking at Conservatives Charitably

Do Conservatives believe that their policies will enrich the wealthy at the expense of poor and working class Americans? I'm willing to concede they mostly don't. Every so often you read a screed by someone who really does seem to have it in for America's poor, but for the most part Conservatives believe that if Conservative policies are followed they will be good for everybody.

Take for example, Kevin McCullough's latest article.

The bailout, the stimulus, the omnibus, and the proposed budget all do nothing to assist a poor person in finding independence and they all aim to create an enslavement to entitlements that dehumanize the individual, create embarrassment for their family, and ultimately rob that person of one of the most cherished gifts God grants us--the satisfaction of personal achievement.

Now I'm going to take McCullough at his word; this is genuinely how he looks at the world. The damage done by helping poor people would be greater than the damage they are are already suffering. I disagree with his assessment; rather I think following his policies will make wealthy people more powerful and more wealthy while making life harder for America's working and middle class. That's why I disagree with and oppose the policies he and other conservatives espouse, but I generally don't doubt that such policies are honestly held (with a few exceptions I must admit).

But McCullough is not likely to extend to me the same charity.

Democrats, and the progressive left in particular, exploit the poor, they use the poor, they write speeches about them, and manipulate their "unrepresented voices" in debates. But one thing is increasingly clear from the Obama administration and the popular left in America, they don't have any interest in helping them.

So there you go.

Comments on the Prompter

As promised I did look at the comments on the article above; like I thought they aren't keen on Gerson's article.

One set of complaints is worth pointing out.

But you seem to have missed the main point of all those people complaining about the president's constant use of the teleprompter: he was sold to us as someone who didn't need it.

Barack Obama was supposed to be this eloquent man, with a firm grasp on the situation at hand and the admirable ability to speak with strength and conviction.

Amen brother, Amen!!! You said pretty much what I was thinking when I read this pile of poop: When you are supposed to be the reincarnation of Aristotle, Socrates, or Plato in speaking to the masses, you are not supposed to need promoter for a six minute speech!

The second comment is saying Amen to the first guys comment.

So the complaint is, essentially, that Obama was supposed to be a brilliant speaker and a brilliant man, nearly a godlike figure who could do anything, and since he is using a teleprompter, he must not be flawless. This only works if you buy the argument the Obama sold himself as a perfect human being. Republicans do; they've been "concerned" about his "Messianic" trappings since about the time they realized he had a good chance to take the nomination from Hillary.

On the other hand I, and dare I say most Democrats, never thought Obama was a flawles; they just thought he was clearly better than McCain and a huge step up from President Bush. So the argument, to me at least, seems a strawman. "You Liberals said that Obama was perfect, and it turns out he's not."

If you prefer a nuttier comment, by the way, check out this one.

When this punk sold his soul to the Bilderberg Group he agreed to let them script his presentations. They know what they want said to facilitate the destruction of our country and create their new world order. Honestly, stop calling this fool "brilliant" and an inspiring speaker - he is neither. We are on the cusp of either a revolution or a complete downfall in this nation. Pick your side.

That's a tough choice; particularly since a revolution could easily lead to the complete downfall in this nation.

Making sense

Don't have a lot of time this morning but wanted to point you to a sensible article over at Townhall by Michael Gerson. He takes on the Limbaugh Conservatives current obsession with teleprompters and President Obama's use thereof. And he basically says it should be no big deal.

Obama's goal at his recent news conference was less elevated -- to express his thoughts on the economy with precision, as he faces a crisis in which a stray word could have a tremendous cost.

During a wobbly first two months, Obama has had many problems. But using an autocue isn't one of them. A teleprompter speech represents the elevation of writing in politics. And good writing has an authenticity of its own.

He's not wrong. But I doubt his message will resonate with Townhall readers for two reasons.

One, he attributes to Obama good speeches; but our buddies at Townhall presumably think that Obama's speeches have been lousy.

Two, he is mildly critical of President Ronald Reagan's ability to speak extemporaneously.

If I think of it I'll check in the comments sections later on.

Let's Talk about Flags

Yep Flags. I was just reading Steve Chapman's latest article in which he talks about Rep. Shane Jett of the Oklahoma Legislature, who wants to add an exclamation point to the state flag. You see the flag has the name on it, but Rep. Jett thinks he can spruce it up with an exclamation point.

There are a couple of jokes to make here, I suppose. Steve Chapman makes a few of them.

Given that most flags fly almost exclusively in their home state, including a name disparages the mental acuity of residents. It implies that without a prompt, some people would forget where they live.

Ah but what if Doctor Mysteriex develops his mass amnesia ray? The prominent name of the state would give the newly amnesiac masses a chance.

Doctor Mysteriex - "Ha you hapless fools, welcome to Mysteriexland, a private fiefdom where you are all pathetic serfs! Ha ha ha ha ha!"

Oklahoman - "But wait, look at that flag over there. It says Oklahoma? What's an Oklahoma?"

Doctor Mysteriex - "Curses. For some reason, I'm foiled."

Steve Chapman points out that many state flags suck, and suggests that flags need to be simpler and easier to draw. So he basically comes down on the side of Rep. Jett, saying that at least he's trying to improve the State Flag.

I agree, but frankly if you are going to take your inspiration from Rogers and Hammerstien, well, The Sound of Music is a far superior work.

Liberals vs. Conservatives

Glenn Greenwald's latest article contrasts the criticisms President Obama has received from Liberals and the praise President Bush received from conservatives.

Whenever I would speak at events over the last couple of years and criticize the Bush administration's expansions of government power, extreme secrecy and other forms of corruption, one of the most frequent questions I would be asked was whether "the Left" -- meaning liberals and progressives -- would continue to embrace these principles with a Democrat in the White House, or whether they would instead replicate the behavior of the Right and uncritically support whatever the Democratic President decided. Though I could only speculate, I always answered -- because I believed -- that the events of the last eight years had so powerfully demonstrated and ingrained the dangers of uncritical support for political leaders that most liberals would be critical of and oppositional to a Democratic President when that President undertook actions in tension with progressive views.

Two months into Obama's presidency, one can clearly conclude that this is true. Even though Obama unsurprisingly and understandably remains generally popular with Democrats and liberals alike, there is ample progressive criticism of Obama in a way that is quite healthy and that reflects a meaningful difference between the "conservative movement" and many progressives.

I think there's a valid point here, but perhaps a few caveats need to be applied.

First of all, conservatives are naturally inclined to the great man theory of politics, because they don't believe in the power of Government to do good. Rather they think the Government that does the least is the best. In their minds, it takes a great man to really make Government work at all, and they become devoted to those man. Consider how regularly they accused the bureaucrats of sabotaging President Bush.

This also goes to what they see the job of the President, which is, in a nutshell, commander in chief. They are aware that he also oversees a vast executive bureaucracy, but, since they would like to see that bureaucracy destroyed, they don't consider that side of his job to be very important. What matters to them is protecting the American people.

Which ties into one of Greenwald's blind spots in a way. He obviously cares greatly about civil liberties and how the Bush administration took a hatchet to basic constitutional protections. And to conservatives, those are Bush's strong points. So their willingness to praise him when he was doing that kind of stuff; it's not like they were praising him in spite of his record on civil liberties. Rather they were praising him for casting aside our civil liberties.

So when you talk about their slavish devotion to President Bush, he's right, they were slavishly devoted to him on the issues of foreign policy and protecting the homeland. But a conservative can respond to this by saying "Yeah but we criticized him all the time on issues like growing the government or border protection." Which again is true but missing the point.

The bottom line is that the things the Bush government were doing should have been a problem to all Americans, conservative or liberal. The fact is, however, a significant number of Americans wanted President Bush to do exactly what he did.

Oh and if you are tempted to say "I sure haven't seen any liberals / progressives criticize Obama," kindly look around a bit before posting.

Why don't people hate Communism more?

Dennis Prager's latest article covers Communism vs. Fascism/Nazism, and asks the question we all agree that Nazism is really really bad. So why don't we realize how bad Communism is. He gives his seven reasons; some of which are accurate and some of which are veiled attacks on liberals. He does note that Communism seems to have won, saying "Communism won, Nazism lost. And the winners write history."

However he does leave out a few reasons why Communism isn't seen as bad as Fascism.

1. Conservatives have been muddying the waters since the 1940s and the era of McCarthy. They have tried to equate everything and everyone more liberal than Ronald Reagan as Communist, and hatve warned for years that every liberal/progressive proposal is leading us to Communism. It's a bit like the boy who cried wolf; eventually it stops working. And in so doing it confuses people about what Communism is.

2. Communists are still around and are valuable trading partners. While you can argue that this sucks (and it certainly does) we can't afford to antagonize them as much as perhaps we should. Instead we are stuck pretending they are our friends, which restricts our ability to demonize them the same way we demonize Iran.

But of course the larger point is that whatever high minded principles Prager pretends to, he is of course in favor of reminding us all that Liberals and Progressives are soft on Communism because they secretly favor it.

Sharia Investments

I don't have a lot to say about this story; Diana West, in her latest article, is glad that people are starting to wake up to President Obama's socialist agenda, at least in regards to the outrage over the AIG bonuses. After all he's continued the Bush administrations policy of giving AIG bailout money.

But, in Wests opinion, what people should really be upset about are some of AIG's funds witch conform to Sharia law.

The nationalization of AIG is forcing the American taxpayer to support a very different kind of toxic asset. I refer to AIG's promotion of Sharia (Islamic law) in its Takaful division, the Sharia-compliant insurance sector of AIG. Since we the people own 80 percent of AIG, we the people now promote Sharia, too.

Don't believe me? Takaful insurance, our very own AIG Takaful Web site explains, "avoids prohibited elements in accordance with the Sharia law," adding: "We do not invest in anything that is haram (prohibited under Sharia). We do not borrow, lend or enter into any financial transaction that is unIslamic."

Apparently this particular issue has caused West to discover the value of separating Church and State. But I think West would like to see Islam separated from everything possible. At any rate this isn't too hard to understand. There are people who want to invest money in investments that confirm to Islamic principles; AIG has created funds to cater to those people. It is no different than funds created to conform to a wide variety of ideas and belief systems; there is a niche and AIG filled it.

I wonder what West thinks a real American government would do - require those funds be shut and the money returned to the clients, I guess. Because the existence of and any accommodation of Islam, in the slightest, is a threat to all of us.

Boldness

Matt Towery has a recommendation for the Republican Party in his latest article. It's that they should be bold. Specifically they should put forth ideas. Bold ideas. Four bold ideas that Towery would like to see the Republicans champion.

1. Term limits for congressional types. I don't have a strong feeling about this one, one way or another. The issue isn't term limits, however, the really issue is gerrymandering. How many congressional districts in the United States are really contestable and how many are cut in such a way as to be "safe" for one party or the other? But that's another issue; at any rate, this is nice, but not going to set the world on fire.

2. The Fair Tax. By the fair tax they mean a flat tax - this would lower the tax burden on the wealthy and possibly raise it on the working class. It would mean that the government would have to spend less money, which means they would have to cut services (presumably services which disproportionately benefit the working class).

3. Eliminate federal agencies and consolidate others. As referenced earlier, whether or not Towery specifically wants to make life harder on the working and middle class, that would probably be the end result, as programs that benefit them are scaled back or eliminated.

4. Start a program to restore American Manufacturing Dominance.

Provide a list of laws to be eliminated, incentives to be provided and a definitive means of measuring progress. We will forever be beholden to countries such as China to provide capital for our treasury if they continue to grow a manufacturing-strong economy while we become a nation where basically everyone trades dollar bills for providing services to one another.

This is the most interesting to me. Because how does China beat us currently? They treat their employees terribly, paying them little, and working them hard. Right now, American workers are far more expensive than Chinese ones. American Workers have to be paid well, have to have benefits, have to have safe working conditions, have limits in how long they can work and so on and so forth. Chinese workers are a bargain comparatively speaking.

Now as a soft-headed liberal I think to myself, "Well something needs to be done to give those Chinese workers a leg up." But I'm guessing Towery, as a hard-headed Conservative, probably isn't thinking along those lines. Possibly he believes that we can innovate faster than the Chinese, improve our manufacturing processes such that we can continue employing expensive American workers and still out perform Chinese plants. But just as likely he believes that American Workers have it too easy and are too protected. If we remove those protections, eliminate that "list of laws" he references (and I'm not even mentioning the environmental laws), if we make America a bit more like the third world, well, than things will really take off.

The Glory of Capitalism

This is from Monday's Rush Limbaugh show, in which he was talking about the AIG Bonuses and why the government shouldn't interview with said bonuses. He got a call from someone who complained about Government Bailout money going to provide the bonuses, who was upset at having to scrape by while these people were getting the big bucks. Rush then asserted that if he wanted to make $250,000.00 it was out there for him. He then proceeded to give his theory of capitalist compensation.

People get paid -- at least in capitalism -- based upon the value of their work to other people.

If you work for me, for example, and I assign you to do something I no longer have time to do, but I need you to do it almost as good as I do, knowing you can't do it as well as I do, but almost as good, and let's say I determine that in terms of my time and my desires, let's say I'm going to pay you a hundred thousand dollars to do that, it is silly for anybody to start assigning, "Well, is that job worth a hundred thousand?" It is to me, and I'm paying it, and that's all that counts. Somebody who does the same thing for somebody else may make minimum wage, as an example, may make 50, whatever. May make more. It's worth what I'm willing to pay somebody to do it.

In a strict sense this is right, with some caveats.

1. We have determined that some activities are illegal because they harm the community. No matter how much value you might place on Crack Cocaine or how much you might be willing to pay to acquire it, it remains illegal in our system because of the damage it does to our communities. Some other corporate practices might well fall into this category as well.

2. A system that rewards activities out of phase with their actual value is not sustainable. Google Tulip Mania for an example of this particular problem. For the past several years, I believe we have been suffering from "executive mania." Executives are compensated enormously, seemingly regardless of the actual benefits they bring to the company.

Now I understand that if AIG wants to compensate their executives well above the value they actually bring to the company that's their business (unless they are taking Government Bailout money of course (they are, in fact, taking Government bailout money)).

The Sanctity of Contracts

This is a recent post by Glen Greenwald that points out that some contracts are more sanctified than others.

As any lawyer knows, there are few things more common - or easier -- than finding legal arguments that call into question the meaning and validity of contracts. Every day, commercial courts are filled with litigations between parties to seemingly clear-cut agreements. Particularly in circumstances as extreme as these, there are a litany of arguments and legal strategies that any lawyer would immediately recognize to bestow AIG with leverage either to be able to avoid these sleazy payments or force substantial concessions.

There's more here, in particular about why these particular contracts are so important to fulfill (because otherwise AIG will be able to retain the talent that has run their country into the ground).

Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Obamaism?

Not so much.

But that won't stop Conservatives like David Limbaugh, in his latest article, from claiming that Obama is a threat to capitalism.

I don't use the term "Marxist," in connection with President Barack Obama's policies, lightly or even to inflame, but to express my genuine fear that if we don't put the brakes on his agenda to remake America in his image, we'll end up both enslaving and bankrupting America by the end of his tenure.

Well except that Obama isn't really much of a Marxist. Heck he's not even a socialist according to an actual socialist, Billy Wharton, in an editorial at the Washington Post.

The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.

. . . I doubt that any of Obama's policies will someday appear in the annals of socialist history. The president has, however, been assigned the unenviable task of salvaging a capitalist system intent on devouring itself. The question is whether he can do so without addressing the deep inequalities that have become fundamental features of American society.

That's not to say that Obama isn't a threat to the kind of America that the Limbaugh brothers believe in. He is. Robert Reich, in an article over at Salon, underlined how Obama's plans, although incremental and perhaps even timid, reflect an underlying change in our national economic policy.

But there's another way to view Obamanomics -- as an economic philosophy exactly the opposite of the one that's dominated America for more than a quarter century.

The basic idea of Reaganomics was that the economy grows from the top down. Lower taxes on the wealthy make them work harder and invest more, and the benefits trickle down to everyone else. Rarely in economic history has a theory been more tested in the real world and proven so wrong. In point of fact, nothing trickled down. After the Reagan tax cuts, increases in the median wage slowed, adjusted for inflation. After George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, the median wage actually dropped. Meanwhile, most of the income went to the top. In 1980, just before the Reagan revolution, the richest 1 percent took home 9 percent of total national income. But by 2007, the richest 1 percent was taking home 22 percent.

Obamanomics, by contrast, holds that an economy grows best from the bottom up. Obama's program increases taxes on the top and uses the proceeds to raise the living standard of average Americans by giving them lower taxes, better schools and more affordable health insurance. That may not seem very radical, but compared with the last quarter century it's revolutionary.

He's not wrong. Reagen, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 all operated under the principle that government was at best inefficient and at worse a straight jacket; they all operated on the principle that taking of the wealthy and corporations was job number one. And we've paid the price for that political theory.

Are You John Galt?

Atlas Shrugged is a popular book among conservatives right now. For those who don't know, it posits a world in which the successful and creative people abandon an America and a world that increasingly straightjackets their creativity and robs them of their wealth.

Well with Obama in the white house, I gather Republicans feel that it's time to implement this idea and that's what Terry Paulson suggests, hypothetically, in his latest article.

Our unchecked entitlement system will eventually collapse; I challenge you to make that happen now! It’s time for Atlas to shrug—to calmly, consciously and deliberately go on strike for true fairness. Our collective response must be simple and non-violent—“No More! I will cease to achieve, invent, produce, hire, serve or invest until all Americans pay the same flat income-tax rate!”

Reengage when America once again is a country that protects everyone’s rights—the right to property, the right for every person to rise as far as she’s able.

It must certainly be entertaining for Republicans to entertain this fantasy; but a general strike of the wealthy only works if they all agree to participate, and consequently all agree to abandon their wealth or to withdraw from America.

I don't really know what to say about this particular fantasy. I think it's telling that Paulson (and many Republicans) look at America as it is and basically determines that wealthiest among us are the ones who are really getting the shaft.

Welcome to Socialism

It's amusing to watch the battle between Rush Limbaugh and Obama, this titanic struggle in which Obama and other Democrats noted that Limbaugh had a vastly different view of America than themselves. Yep, that's hitting him below the belt. Oh and Limbaugh said he hopes Obama fails which isn't playing to well, even with some in his own party.

So naturally Conservatives are springing to Rush's defense. Today it's Bret Prelutsky and Frank Turek.

When the Democrats took James Carville’s advice to attack Rush Limbaugh, it made perfect sense. Some people thought it was intended to distract us from the fact that Obama was spending money faster than the Monopoly Company could print it. I, on the other hand, believed it was setting us up for the passage of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Bret Prelutsky, Obama, Kruschev, and Limbaugh

Obama’s direction is demonstrably wrong because it ignores the repeated lessons of history and adopts a false view of human nature. Socialism has never worked and will never work because it destroys human incentive and creates dependency.

Limbaugh says that Obama knows this and wants to create a culture of dependency that will keep Democrats perpetually in power. If this is true, Obama is taking a leadership page from Joseph Stalin.

Frank Turek, Limbaugh, Obama, Stalin and Leadership

It's fascinating that both Prelutsky and Turek defend Rush by calling Obama the equivalent of a Communist Dictator. Prelutsky is a little softer than Turek (in the sense that Khruschev is less of a monster than Stalin), but both demonize Obama far more than Obama demonized Limbaugh.

It reminds me uncannily of the theory that if Conservative Christians don't get everything they want, they are being persecuted. I suspect this kind of complaining will get worse before it gets better.

Save the Rich

Dan Kennedy's latest article is how foolish it is for Obama to tax the wealthy. Apparently it's designed to punish married married people a lot more than single wealthy people.

As I understand it, Obama’s tax attack begins at $200,000 of income for an individual but only $250,000 for a married couple. So, if I earn $399,000.00 and my wife is a stay-at-home Mom, we should divorce and “live in sin,” and I should shift $199,500 of the income to her.

I suppose if the only reason you are married is the tax break, that would be true. But I doubt that this is really designed to punish married people. Rather it has to do with how much money it really takes to live; there are entire families living on less than $50,000, so it shouldn't be impossible for a couple to live on $250,000.

Those Darned Hollywood Policy Makers

Ben Shapiro's latest article is about Hollywood and Iran. He's peeved.

Last week, a group of prominent actors and movie executives from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences visited Iran.

Fresh from the Academy’s triumphant Oscar-night celebration of homosexuality and religion-bashing, Sid Ganis, president of the Academy, Oscar-nominated actresses Annette Bening and Alfre Woodard, former president Frank Pierson, and producers William Horberg and Tom Pollack made the journey to Tehran.

There they met with the Iranian House of Cinema, the film organization operating under the auspices of the Islamic, homosexuality-banning Iranian government.

. . . Since when have Hollywood stars become proxies for actual policymakers?

OK a few points; is Ben Shapiro disapproving of Iran's policy towards homosexuals? Or envious of it? Cause it seems like he disapproves of Hollywood being in favor of Homosexuals being treated like full citizens and equally disapproving of Iran discriminating against Homosexuals.

Whatever, the other oddity is him taking a meeting of American film makers with Iranian film makers as some sort of statement by the Obama administration. I'm not surprised that Shapiro doesn't know this, because Iran is the enemy and showing any interest at all in the enemy is weakness to the meathead right wing, but Iran actually does have a vibrant film scene.

Mike S. Adams

Excessively lazy Mike S. Adam's latest article is a bunch of e-mails between himself and one of his readers, a liberal woman named Rachel. Adams supposes he comes off better in this debate, but I'm not so sure.

But, Rachel, the only ones who did not understand were the ones on liberal websites. This reinforces the unfortunate view that liberalism is an emotional disorder rather than a political philosophy. I believe I can say that since I am a former liberal.

Are you a prostitute?

What a jackass.

It's well known that Limbaugh's screeners make sure to exclude any liberal with a brain, while putting any liberal who sounds like a moron at the top of the list. Mike S. Adams seems to be trying a similar technique, but he doesn't pull it off quite as successfully.

Radical Change

Kevin McCullough's latest article is entitled "Why Obama Wants America to Fail." Promising title. In it he takes Obama to task for failing to solve our nations financial problems. Obviously if he wanted an economic upturn he'd return to the Bush policies of endless tax cuts. His decision not immediately enact Bush-style Tax Cuts proves that he wants America to fail.

It sounds like I'm over stating his case for humorous effect I admit; but other then the reference to President Bush, that is pretty much his argument.

If it makes no sense to the free market economists that populate the best economics programs across the nation, if it weakens the ability for the average family to make ends meet, and if it does not increase the number of people actually working, why is President Obama so stubbornly continuing to pursue his economically diabolical plan of destruction?

Fortunately for us all, McCullough has an answer to this conundrum; Obama wants Americans to suffer so they will support his policies of making America worse for everybody.

President Obama and his team do not intend to solve this crisis as quickly as they possibly could--like he promised on the campaign trail. Instead, his intention is to let us bleed until the whimper we are expressing now finally builds into an all out, gut wrenching, cry of anguish. He does not care what must be done to arrive at that reality, only that we arrive there.

This is pretty nasty stuff; but I think McCullough believes it. And I think a surprising number of conservative Republicans would agree with his analysis. Which is why their party is headed, in the short term, towards obscurity.

The Fairness Doctrine isn't Coming Back

This is the theme of an article over at Commondreams from the Capital Times. The article makes it clear that Rush and Congressional Republicans are aware of this.

They have never been all that worried about the fairness doctrine.

They're worried about what always scares them: a wide-open, freewheeling debate and the competition of ideas that encourages everyone to have their say and trusts the American people to sort things out.

Well I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I certainly am in favor of different points of view on the radio, but the right wing commentators point has always been that non-Conservative points of view aren't profitable. People don't want a liberal Rush Limbaugh, in their viewpoint, or at least they don't want a Rush Limbaugh bad enough to support him. The American people demand the opportunity to be constantly harangued by right wing nut jobs and don't want free wheeling debates or competition of ideas. So if you mandate that; well, that means radio owners are going to be required to place on the air people their audience doesn't want to listen to. Which will lead to a loss in advertising revenues, which will lead to a format change. "Hey if I am a talk radio station, I have to spend half my time alienating my customers, but if I am a country radio station, well no worries."

Now that's necessarily the world's great argument; I think there ways to encourage greater diversity of views without placing straight jackets on radio stations, and Republicans / Conservatives always leave out the toxic influence of Clear Channel on our radio environment. One of the simplest ways to provide a balance in local radio markets would be to help out small local radio stations, both existing ones and new ones.

Clearly Thinking

You can't blame David Limbaugh for leaping to the defense of his brother Rush, in his latest article. Still his defense doesn't make a lot of sense. He wants to have it both ways, suggesting that Rush isn't as important as some Democrats are making him out to be while simultaneously exulting him as the standard bearer of the opposition.

Have you noticed their coordinated effort to label Rush the leader of the Republican Party? Do you think it's accidental that James Carville so describes him? Do you think it's just coincidental that Obama called Rush out personally and that the entire flock of mainstream media sheep followed suit?

. . . Rush is the target because he represents the real opposition. He's the leading voice for those who are really standing up for America and its founding ideals.

It kind of sounds like Rush really is something worth going after if you want to promote liberal ideals.

Self Mythologizing

We all self mythologize to a certain extent; it's how we live with ourselves. Sometimes it's putting a happy sheen over a crummy life and sometimes it's faking it until you make it, but we all do it to a certain extent. Oh, and if you are reading this and thinking "I don't do that" you probably do it worse than most.

Right now Conservatives find themselves having to put up with a President they didn't vote for and don't much like. So they have transformed him into a raving socialist and themselves into defenders of the realm. Take Doug Giles latest article, praising Rush Limbaugh.

In Obamaland where truth is dead, muscle power becomes the operative standard of speech. The results are cultic conformity and group bullying. The chief orgasmic goal of the elders of Obamaland is to create a rock-solid environment of political correctness—with the intended end being the cowing of people who might rustle their feathers by not parroting their already tried (and been found wanting) opinions. They can’t allow people to speak and think freely because the realist and the truth dealer would pee on their little party. That’s exactly what Rush is doing, and I’ll think I’ll join him.

See Doug Giles is busy patting himself on the back for, well, continuing to do what he's been doing. Rather than admitting he is going to continue criticizing a moderately liberal President, he chooses to pretend he's heroically doing battle against an oppressive dictator.

And let's face it, that just a lot more heroic and noble.