I am not referring to his personal politics which are no more or less malignant than any other Neocon. I am not scared of him because his campaign tactics are just slightly less reprehensible than those of Hitler.
This man managed to make Dubya palatable to the American people.
This man convinced John McCain that “Sarah Palin is a good idea”
And here are the actual results from last night’s election…
For those of you not paying attention, Rove’s prediction is precisely and absolutely correct so far. There are 3 states that are “too close to call”, and if all 3 go to John McCain, then Rove will be exactly correct. He predicted an electoral vote margin of 338 for Obama to 200 for McCain. Obama has reached 338 electoral votes on the nose, and if Rove is wrong, it will be because Obama won one of the three remaining states. (According to the latest numbers, Obama is ahead in two of the three states.)
Whatever else you can say about Karl Rove, you cannot deny that this man has his finger on the pulse of American politics. The fact that I disagree with his politics in no way diminishes the fact that he is a frighteningly effective campaign organizer.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand his rage. I know that just about every election is yet another example of the eternal struggle between “Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche“ Here is why it is important to vote anyway.
You do not change the country in 4 years. It took us many years to become the nation we are today, good or bad. There will never be a candidate who can make this country into the perfect place for you to call home. There is no such thing as Utopia. All you can do is pick the one who is closest to the direction you want to go, philosophically speaking. Maybe you want a Socialist Workers Paradise or a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. You’re not going to find a candidate who can take you there in 4 years. Even if he promises everything you ever wanted in a government, there is a difference between striving for something and actually making it happen.
If John McCain wins tomorrow, we will not become “The Holy United States of Jesusland” on January 21st next year. If Barack Obama wins tomorrow, we will not have free health care for all and the rich will not be taxed into the poor house by Valentine’s Day. Governments, especially ours, are not designed to move quickly. That’s a good thing. In a nation where pandering to the mob can get just about anyone elected, it’s good to have some brakes on the machinery of state.
The gentleman in the above video is right, kinda. Your vote will not cause the Earth to tremble, nor will it shake the halls of power and send politicians scurrying about like cockroaches when the kitchen light is turned on. It is a voice. One voice in a chorus of millions. Some of you will vote for third party candidates in order to make a statement. Some of you will vote because you believe strongly in your candidate. Others will vote because they believe strongly against the other candidate. What is important is that your voice is heard. Even if it is drowned out by others. Even if you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Your voice will still be part of the bigger chorus.
Refusing to vote because you believe it doesn’t matter or because you believe that “all politicians are crooks”, is the civil equivalent of “taking your ball and going home”. You’re still subject to the same laws as the rest of us. You’re still paying the same taxes. You’re still under the same obligations, but you’ve given up your one privilege. Your petulance is causing you to behave like the spoiled brat at a restaurant who is upset because his favorite meal isn’t on the menu.
Do you realize that making your voice heard, even if it is for some crazy candidate like Cynthia McKinney, might encourage others of a similar stripe to speak up. One day, maybe not in 4 years, maybe not in 20, but someday, a politician will notice that there is a large group of people who aren’t being represented in Washington. They will notice that people like you vote, and that you will vote for a politician who advocates the policies you feel are so important.
Stop thinking in terms of 4 years and take a big picture view. This country didn’t become what it was overnight. It took people with a vision and an idea and the patience to make it happen. Stop whining and start working. One day your “crackpot” ideas might become part of the mainstream.
Look at our recent past. Reaganomics was once dismissed as “Voodoo” by a man who later became Reagan’s Vice President. The notion that a black man might someday be the Democratic nominee for Preisdent was unthinkable 50 years ago. Back then, some members of the Democratic party were even members of the KKK (One of whom, Senator Robert Byrd, still serves in Congress today!). Politicians like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich might be seen as “fringe” today, but by voting and keeping their names out there in the public eye, someday they might have a chance to kick in the door for someone else.
That will never happen if the voters who feel most strongly about these issues give up and sulk at home on election day.
The man in this video speaks of “walking away”, of “refusing to play their game”. To him, I would say “Where are you going to move? Is there some country out there that is doing things better than we are? Is there anywhere else in the world where you would even have a chance of making things different?” This is no game, and you can’t quit just because you’re losing. There are millions around the world who would die (and HAVE died) for the opportunity to make their voices heard to those who would govern them. Think very carefully before throwing your voice away.
The good news, for you, is that in two days will will get a break from the incessant political ads which are about as truthful as a 16-year old who promises to pull out in time. The bad news is that the sniping will continue until the next election cycle begins in two years.
I’ve received plenty of responses to my last little diatribe, and rather than respond to each of them one by one, I’d like to offer a blanket response. First, I’d like to respond to one post in particular. How can you shoot down the concept of government subsidized health care while simultaneously advocating an arrangement shared among extended family (I believe you called it “clan”)? You’re making the same arrangement from a smaller base. Instead of looking at all of the United States as “your clan”,you break it down into smaller social units of people that you happen to be related to by blood. There’s a difference? You have no problem “chipping in” to help others, as long as they’re family.
There are two fundamental arguments at work here. Obligation is not something that can be forced upon someone else indefinitely. At some point an individual must accept responsibility or he will either be negligent of, or actively resistant to, that obligation. On the other hand, living in a society is a social contract. In accepting society’s benefits and protections (police, roads, armed forces, etc.) you implicitly agree to obey that society’s laws. The law is not an “ala carte” menu. You don’t get to pick and choose which laws you obey and which do not apply to you. Law applies to all equally. (at least, in theory)
The question that must be answered is “Can government perform this societal function better than the individual, and would the benefit of such activity be beneficial to all?” In a comment from Data Vortex, he includes a link to a story about a Congressman who votes to give money from the treasury to a family who is burned out by fire. Indeed, in the story cited, it would be inappropriate for Congress to vote to give money to an individual or single family. The story fails to pass the test of the above question. It does not benefit everyone equally.
However, what if Congress had voted to create a trust fund that could get all families who are burned out by fire back on their feet? What if such a fund were available to any families who needed it? Such a concept would pass the test of “beneficial to all”, and if such a plan were possible, the government could employ the economy of scale required to make it happen. It does not answer the practical details of such a plan, and I believe that is our greatest weakness as a government. Too often, we pass bad ideas as law in the interest of “doing something”. “Something”, in this case, has to be the RIGHT thing.
I would not support “Universal Health Care” if the plan is “a blank check for every medical procedure”. Such a plan would invite waste and fraud. I do not believe that means that there is no solution that would provide benefit to all, but I believe it is a problem that should be addressed, and soon. I believe that promoting competition in the medical and insurance marketplaces is beneficial. I believe that transparency in the insurance industry is a good idea. I believe that if an individual can do better on their own that they should be encouraged to do so.
But I also believe that “Tough Shit” is not a good enough answer to those who can’t. At some point, it is in our interests to look out for our fellow Americans. Not on every issue, and not all the time, but at some point it makes things better for us as individuals if we make sure our neighbors are in good shape. There is a continuum between “every man for himself” capitalism and “nanny state” socialism. The question is where we lie on that continuum.
Let’s face it. I’m a southerner. I was born in the south (South Carolina), spent my youth in the south (Florida and Georgia), went to college in the south (Georgia Tech) and remain in the south to this day. I know what grits are made of, and I believe that there is only two kinds of tea in this world, “sweet tea” and “swotty nancy-boy fancy pants tea”.
That said, I spent most of my adult life as a political conservative. I believed that a government that governs least, governs best. Unlike many of my southern brethren (and sistren), I didn’t give a rat’s ass about the “Religious Right” or other elements of the Republican party that differed from my own philosophy of “government has no business in my business”.
Then, one day, I woke up and the religious kooks took over the asylum. Dubya was out there doing his best “guns, gawd, and gub’mint” routine, and there was no place in the Republican party for a guy who just wanted to be left alone to live his life his own way. I couldn’t go with the Democrats because they were the party of “liberal college kids, poor people, Yankees, and Ted Kennedy”. I really didn’t care what they had to offer, which is fortunate because they had very little to offer except opposition to Bush.
In 2004, I held my nose as I voted for John Kerry. I wasn’t voting for him as much as I was voting “no” on 4 more years of Dubya-nomics. John Kerry is about as inspiring as a pep talk from Ben Stein. I was dreading 2008 because I assumed that it would be the coronation of Hillary Clinton, and like most other southerners, I believed that she was one step away from the Antichrist himself.
A funny thing happened on the way to her coronation.
I started paying attention to some of the rhetoric coming from the Democrats. I started hearing words like “middle class tax cut” and “balanced budget”. Instead of the “I’d like to teach the world to sing” foreign policy stances of Liberals past, I was hearing “We’ve got to go into Afghanistan and Pakistan and get Osama bin Laden”. I was hearing criticism of the Iraq war, not because they were defeatist, or pacifist, but because our government was going after the wrong guy. Meanwhile, our “Conservative” administration was promoting things like the Patriot Act, and engaging in a systematic erosion of rights, civil and otherwise, in the name of some nebulous “War of Terror”.
In all of this, I still held the belief that “Socialism is Evil”. I was particularly fond of the canard that Socialized health care would be run with the cost-effectiveness of the military and the bedside manner of the IRS.
One of my favorite political authors is James Carville. When he managed Bill Clinton’s campaign in 1992, he had 3 issues on the white board in his “War Room”
It is an article of faith in some parts of this country that Europe is a Socialist cess-pool where nobody works, and the government is nanny to a bunch of lazy malcontents. Of course those of us who have actually spoken to a real live European know that they seem to be happy, well-adjusted, and oh-so-amused at the continuing hijinks of “Those crazy Americans”. We work harder, for more hours and get less for it than our European friends, and yet we’re the ones turning our collective noses up at them. While Europeans are enjoying between 4 and 6 weeks of vacation (PAID!!!) per year, many Americans don’t even take the 2 to 3 weeks per year that we receive. Some might argue that adopting a European approach would “slow us down”, however the overall health and welfare of a society is measured in terms that go beyond mere economic output.
When you consider that much of our economic “productivity” is based on borrowing, lending, and speculation, maybe a more pragmatic, “slower” approach is in order. Maybe re-channeling some of that economic activity directly into things that benefit all of us such as health care, or more worker-friendly labor regulations might be better for us in the long run.
Greetings from a former Dittohead. Back in the early 90’s, I was an avid listener to your radio show. I thoroughly enjoyed your sense of humor and your willingness to lampoon and annoy politicians and public figures that took themselves and their causes a little too seriously. I embraced your brand of conservatism that held the idea that Americans could look out for themselves without the help of Big Government. I was 21 years old and in college. I didn’t need Government to help me get anywhere and I didn’t see how anyone else did.
Then I grew up.
When I was in college, I believed that the decisions and agreements that individuals made were the result of negotiations between two equal parties. I believed that people made decisions based on rational self interest. I believed that getting a job was just a matter of performing work for an employer to the best of my ability in exchange for a salary. I believed that it was in the company’s best interest to look out their employees because the employees looked out for the company’s best interests. I believed that buying a house or a car was simply a matter of determining how much you could reasonably afford, then negotiating in good faith with the seller to buy the house or car that you wanted. I believed that people were basically honest and fair, and that only a few bad apples were the kind of “bad guys” who made the evening news.
Then I grew up.
I lost a job that I had been in for years because someone else, who had no idea what I did, told the man in charge that he could save money by firing me. (“All he does is… I can do that!“) This very same person was on the phone a week later asking me how to do the very things that were my job responsibility. I had a house payment and credit cards to pay off, and unemployment insurance (there’s that Government thing again) was the difference between me staying in my house and having to foreclose or even declare bankruptcy. Government didn’t fix anything for me, but it sure as hell helped. My employer certainly wasn’t looking out for me.
I eventually picked myself up from that fiasco and became gainfully employed again. It was time for me to purchase a new car. I was smart enough to know that car salesmen aren’t the most trustworthy characters, but I had no idea… We had agreed on a financing package. The interest rate and terms were reasonable and we shook hands. When I double-checked the paperwork, the terms in the contract were completely different than what we had agreed on. If I had trusted the handshake deal, I would have been stuck paying an extra year’s worth of payments on a car, paying 5000-6000 dollars more than the car was worth. I would have had nobody to blame but myself, but it galled me that the person whose hand I had just shaken in agreement would try to rip me off so blatantly. These are the people who am I supposed to trust without needing the recourse of an effective government?
You see? When I was a dittohead, I didn’t understand what Government did well. I knew they funded roads and the military, and I knew that everything they touched turned into a monstrous bureaucracy. What good is Government when it comes to issues like health care, or employment law, or the environment?
Then I learned that rather than being “basically honest and fair”, most people are opportunistic jackals who will steal you blind then sell you a shopping cart to carry around the remainder of your worldly possessions. Doctors don’t prescribe drugs that are best for you, they push what the drug companies pay them to sell. Bankers don’t care that you’re out of a home. They just want to earn 400,000 dollars on a 30 year, 150,000 dollar loan. Employers don’t care that you have a wife and daughter that you are working to take care of, they just see you as a line on their payroll budget. If times get tough, they’ll cut (you) and run, taking the remainder of the company’s assets in the form of a golden parachute and leave you twisting in the wind.
Is Government any better? Not really. Government bureaucracy is a nightmare of byzantine rules that can result in paying 600 dollars for a toilet seat. But do you know what the biggest difference between government and the private sector is? If government does a bad job, I can vote the bastards out every few years. I can punt them to the street and give the other guy a chance to make things better. If I get screwed by the corporate conglomerate who tries to weasel their way out of a severance package, or who outsources my job to India in order to make his stock options worth a few more dollars I have no recourse. I have no leverage. I have no power.
With power comes responsibility. I am responsible for learning about the candidates and the issues that are important to them. I’ve said elsewhere that the only deciding factor for a voter in an election is the answer to the question “Are you better off now than you were…?” and that’s true to an extent. No candidate agrees with every voter on every issue. In a two party system, you have a choice to keep going in the same direction or change direction.
Which brings us back to you, Rush. I can understand why you would not support Barack Obama on one level. He’s not conservative in any sense of the term. He is going to expand the power and scope of government, and I understand why that isn’t always a good thing. On the other hand, how in the world can you support John McCain? The Bush administration has been one of the worst examples of Big Government run amok in history. McCain has toed the party line 90% of the time and represents a logical continuation of the last 8 years. Is this the “get government out of our way” type of government you were looking for when I was young?
I might understand if it were a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, but your demonization of Obama’s supporters is out of line. This weekend, I watched a respected former member of the current administration, General Colin Powell, detail his reasons for supporting Barack Obama. I watched him articulately state the reasons that Obama was a better choice than John McCain.
Then I watched you say “Powell is only supporting Obama because he’s black.”
Then I went back in time a little bit and remembered this bit from your brief stint on ESPN.
Then I went back and found some clips like this one…
Seriously? Really?
Rush, you have become a caricature of the very worst traits of the Conservative movement. Instead of acting as a leader for your audience and elevating the debate, you shamelessly pander to the most ignorant and uninformed among us. You march in front of a mob claiming to lead a great movement, but you spend your time looking over your shoulder to make sure that the crowd is still behind you. You are the most feckless, callow, and weak talk show host in a crowd of cowards. The only reason this upsets me at all is that I remember a time when I thought otherwise.
Last night represented a first for me. I parked my ass on the couch with my wife and watched a Vice Presidential debate in HD. Normally, such attention is reserved for weekend football games and Jeopardy, those being about the only two things my wife and I agree on with respect to the idiot box.
I was about to witness a complete and total meltdown on live television, and there was nothing the McCain camp, or Palin’s “handlers” could do about it. Imagine if Captain Smith saw the iceberg on “over the horizon” radar, and still sailed the Titanic right into that sucker. This was going to be the best television since Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction”.
So it shouldn’t be a complete surprise that I was slightly disappointed with the debate itself. Make no mistake, Biden’s “shit eating grin” spoke volumes about Palin’s babbling also rambling and did I mention that McCain is a maverick too, also, stumbling bumbling approach to the debate… also. (had to throw that last one in there to tie the whole sentence together, otherwise it might not have made sense) Palin is the only candidate I’ve ever seen who can answer a question on foreign policy with a statement on her energy policy while governor of Alaska. In fact, it seems like she answered EVERY question with a statement on her energy policy while governor of Alaska.
As for her delivery, can we give the hockey mom thing a rest? I played hockey for a short time, which means technically my mom is a “hockey mom” too. If she had talked like that around our house when I was a kid, we’d have had her locked up for being mentally incompetent. (let’s throw in one more “also” for good measure) The constant winking at the camera and ham-handed cribbing from Ronald Reagan’s debate with Jimmy Carter in 1980 came across as fake instead of genuine and warm which is what made that approach so effective for Reagan in the first place. (in fact, you can see a clip from that debate elsewhere on this very website)
What actually impressed me was Senator Biden’s performance. I knew very little about Joe Biden aside from the fact that he had failed in the Democratic primaries twice, lead the Democratic lynching party against Robert Bork, and was considered someone who couldn’t keep his mouth shut at times. (my kind of guy, now that I think about it…) I thought his approach was understated, yet more effective for that. Instead of tearing into Palin’s rambling approach with a stream of soundbites and pithy comebacks, he either responded with the facts to correct her statements (effective) or threw a dazzling shit-eating grin into the camera as if to say “You don’t need ME to tell you she’s full of shit”. Both he and Barack Obama appeared relaxed and ready to handle the pressure of a debate on live television. McCain and Palin appeared nervous, uncomfortable, and unwilling to answer the questions asked of them. It was Kennedy v Nixon all over again in vibrant HD color goodness.
What really got me, and I think this was the clincher, was Biden’s emotional response to dealing with family issues. When Palin slid so easily into her “hockey mom” routine, Biden came back with a simple, yet emotionally powerful statement.
“Look, I understand what it’s like to be a single parent. When my wife and daughter died and my two sons were gravely injured, I understand what it’s like as a parent to wonder what it’s like if your kid’s going to make it.
I understand what it’s like to sit around the kitchen table with a father who says, “I’ve got to leave, champ, because there’s no jobs here. I got to head down to Wilmington. And when we get enough money, honey, we’ll bring you down.”
I understand what it’s like. I’m much better off than almost all Americans now. I get a good salary with the United States Senate. I live in a beautiful house that’s my total investment that I have. So I — I am much better off now.
But the notion that somehow, because I’m a man, I don’t know what it’s like to raise two kids alone, I don’t know what it’s like to have a child you’re not sure is going to — is going to make it — I understand.
I understand, as well as, with all due respect, the governor or anybody else, what it’s like for those people sitting around that kitchen table. And guess what? They’re looking for help. They’re looking for help. They’re not looking for more of the same.”
Who would have ever thought that a 36-year Senator would “get it” more than a self-professed “hockey mom” who’s entire image screams “Mom, apple pie, and baseball hockey”? I don’t care how much you rehearse before a debate, or how much you cram, if your message is wrong then the preparation is worthless. Obama and Biden stayed on their message, a message that resonates with the voters.
Sarah Palin came across as “one of us” in the debate last night, and no doubt the McCain campaign considers that “Mission Accomplished”. The problem is, we don’t want “one of us” in the White House. We want someone who is more prepared and more informed than we are to make the decisions. It is too much to hope for to ask for someone smarter than us, or better than us, but at least give us someone that we can look in the eye and come away with the confidence that they can get the job done. Palin should be running a boutique in a shopping mall somewhere, not one heartbeat away from Air Force One.
I feel slightly dirty for getting inspiration from a “LOL” site , however…
…makes a really valid point. If the US cynically uses the threat of WMDs as justification to invade another country, why not Russia? Or China? or India? As much as I love my country, our biggest flaw is our deeply rooted belief that “the rules” apply to everyone else. “Fairness” is defined in terms of reasonable profit to ourselves and not what is equitable between two parties.
There is a fundamental different between *being* the best and most powerful country in the world and *acting like* the best and most powerful country in the world. If we have to spend time telling the world what we stand for, then we probably aren’t doing a good enough job of actually standing for those things.
My fellow denizens of “Teh Intartubez”, I am going to give you an extremely valuable piece of information today. One which will help you in any election, for any office, in any country that allows voting. Like Ron Popeil’s dream-come-true, this information will slice, dice, circumsize, sanitize, sterilize, homogenize all of the bullshit out there and is guaranteed never to rust, bust, combust, or collect dust or your money back.
I can’t take credit for this information, the inspiration came from a debate with Ronald Reagan many years ago.
If you’ll remember, this debate effectively gut-punched Carter’s campaign. Jimmy “Nobel Prize” Carter, who many consider to be the best EX-President in American history, is a good man who advocated many positions that are central to today’s campaign. Health Care, Energy Independence, Education were all key points in Carter’s campaign message, yet Reagan beat him in the general election like a pinata filled with cupcakes at Rush Limbaugh’s birthday party.
Why?
“Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?”
It’s JUST THAT EASY! (now do you see why I use the Popeil reference?)
Ask any sane human being and you’ll hear the conventional wisdom that promises made by politicians aren’t worth the airwaves that they travel on. We all know that politicians lie. We all know that they’d sell their mothers for another 4 year fix. We know this, yet the public insists on getting swept up in campaign speeches and debates where nobody remembers the salient points, but everyone parrots a clever soundbite.
When was the last time you checked a voting record in detail? If Senator Whatshisname “voted against the troops”, did he do it because there was too much pork included in the bill? Or was it because another version of the same funding bill was circulating in a House committee and he preferred that version instead? Nuance may not sell with Joe Sixpack, but it is a fact of political life. Sometimes politicians have to hold their noses and vote for things that will get them in deep shit with their constituents. That’s how the game is played. If reporters, who are paid to do this sort of work, can’t keep up with all of the nuance, how can the American voter be expected to do the job well?
Some folks take a shortcut and listen to their friendly neighborhood radio talk show host. Others hang out on their favorite political blog among like-minded individuals where their preconceptions are reinforced by a sympathetic audience.
Same sheep, different color wool.
The great thing about most elections is that they are not held in a vacuum. There is always an incumbent and there is always a challenger. If you like the way things are going, you vote for the incumbent. If you don’t, then you vote for the other guy. Simple? Yes. Your job is to form an intelligent opinion on the state of the world and make your decision. It’s not that hard.
Why have Republicans had a stranglehold on the Presidency since 1980? (well, except for the Clinton years, which I’ll get to in a moment) The economy was booming, we were top-dog in the global kennel, and the vast majority of us were thanking whatever divine providence was in vocal range that we were fortunate enough to live in the U-S-of-by-god-A. Back when uttering the phrase “I’m an American” in a foreign country earned you a certain amount of deference, or even a free drink, depending on where you travelled in the world.
Try walking into a bar in Europe these days and loudly proclaiming “I’m an American!”. At best, you’ll just be sniggered at.
How did Clinton break up the Republican streak? “It’s the economy, stupid!” The economic recession in the early 90’s got everyone refocused on the question of “Are you better off today…” and it cost Bush the election. 4 years later, when things had improved largely on their own, the same question kept Clinton in office for another 4 years despite galvanized opposition from the talk-radio crowd.
But Grim, you ask…
“What about 2004?”
We were still reeling from the 9/11 attacks in 2004. We had just gone into Iraq the previous year and stomped the holy hell out of Saddam’s army. We were fresh off of “Mission Accomplished” when election season came in. The economy appeared to be rebounding, and Americans were disinclined to change direction at that time. A very good argument could be made that 9/11 guaranteed Bush an 8 year term since the American public rarely votes for a challenger in time of war (or at least a war that we appear to be winning). Were we “better off” in 2004 than in 2000? No, but being unable to see the forest for the trees, the American public had the perception that better days were on the way really soon.
Even if Barack Obama spends his entire presidency trying to push through his campaign promises, it is a virtual certainty that he will fail to get everything he wants. Even if John McCain is such a Maverick that he fights every bit of pork-laden legislation that crosses his desk, it is a virtual certainty that he will trend in the same political direction as his predecessor. The only thing you can count on is that Obama will be a change of direction, and McCain will “stay the course” politically speaking.
So I put it to you again…
“Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?”
