Political Hay
Martin Luther King Limbaugh
Dr. King and Rush versus moderates on race: Cornyn, Steele fear the elephant in the room on Sotomayor nomination.
“We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is
already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen
and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it
is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the
natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed,
with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human
conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be
cured.”
— Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. writing on racism in
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
“I care about whether she’s qualified, and I think she’s
disqualified herself. Not only does she lack the
often-discussed appropriate judicial temperament, it’s worse than
that. She brings a form of bigotry or racism to the court.
I don’t care — we’re not supposed to say it, we’re supposed
to pretend it didn’t happen, we’re supposed to look at other
things, but it’s the elephant in the room.”
— Rush Limbaugh speaking on racism and Judge Sonia
Sotomayor on his radio show
Separated at Birth? Dr. Martin Luther King and Rush Limbaugh?
Let’s start here with one of the famous documents of modern American history.
While Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was sitting in a Birmingham, Alabama jail cell in April 1963, arrested for protesting what would today be called identity politics (in 1963 this meant keeping blacks out of public facilities as part of the drive to preserve the white identity), objection was raised to Dr. King about his tactics. This objection did not, however, come from the Bull Connors of the day — they were so ferocious in their opposition no one could mistake what they thought. To this day the images of the snarling Birmingham police dogs and fire hoses unleashed against blacks by Connor in his role as the local Safety Commissioner are frozen in time.
No, Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail was in fact a response to a protest from the moderates of the day. Specifically eight moderate Alabama ministers had written a statement they termed “A Call for Unity,” running it as an ad in the local paper. They made it plain they were not happy with Dr. King. The moderates characterized Dr. King as an “outside agitator” whose vivid protests against racism were “unwise and untimely.” King, they said, was not pursuing his goals through the “proper channels.”
Dr. King, sitting in jail, thought over his response carefully. With exasperation he realized that as bad as the Bull Connors of the world were, they really weren’t the problem. The problem was with those he would term the “white moderates.” Indeed, he had come to believe, moderation when it came to closing one’s eyes to racism was inexcusable.
So Dr. King took the only paper he had available to him — scraps of toilet paper and the margins of a newspaper — and scribbled out his thoughts, addressing his letter to the self-declared moderates in the clergy at large who were upset with his direct confrontation of racism. It was a message intended as well for all Americans who saw themselves as political moderates. King said this about the moderates of the day:
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.”
Citing complaints that he was raising tensions with his language and actions, King went on:
But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
Five months after speaking of the importance of confronting racism (which he called an ugly “boil” and Limbaugh today calls “the elephant in the room”) King would stand on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and deliver these famous lines from his speech to the March on Washington. Speaking on his radio show in 2009, Rush Limbaugh would concur.
Dr. King, 1963: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Rush Limbaugh, 2009: “Whatever happened to the content of one’s character as the basis of judging people?”
In other words, amid the tumult of 1963, Dr. King went out of his way to put himself on record as supporting a core belief, a belief Limbaugh has repeatedly endorsed — the idea of a colorblind America.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (98) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/09/martin-luther-king-limbaugh
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Eric Damon| 6.9.09 @ 7:11AM
I know that the regular liberal posters here are going to have a conniption about the Limbaugh/King connection, but in this instance it is very apt at both levels. Both were/are willing to call a racist a racist and take that hit, while simultaneously taking on the milquetoasts in their midst that would allow the status quo to remain in place.
What I find particularly disturbing is the positions that Michael Steele and Sen. Cornyn have taken on the issue. Sen. Cornyn has obviously been corrupted by the siren song of power, especially when he says that two private citizens don't have a voice in the confirmation process. They don't have a VOTE, but they sure as hell have a right to speak up and be heard. The idea that the only voices that matter belong to the 100 members of the Senate speaks to the elitist mentality that pervades Washington, DC and cuts across all party lines. The members don't speak for us anymore, don't listen to us, and think they rule us instead of representing us.
As for Steele, I have begged my fellow conservatives to give him a chance to find his legs on this new job of his, but this confirms what they were telling me...he is too 'moderate' to lead a resurgence of the GOP and its conservative roots. His stupid, insipid comments about the Sotomayor nomination has finally convinced me that is detractors are right. If he does not realize by now that the Democrats are going to attack the GOP on every issue and that MSNBC only exists for the dual purposes of building up liberal politicians and causes and tearing down conservatives, he is livivng in Bizarro-world! Not opposing her nomination only because of fear of being labeled racist is the height of stupidity, and if this is the best the GOP can come up with as national chairman, then the party may as well settle in for another long run as a marginalized minority party.
Marcell| 6.9.09 @ 7:57AM
That is a crazy story.
It is clear that conservatives are just looking for anything or any reason to disagree with Democrats.
I find it kind of funny that the Republican Party are stuck with having to support the least most inspiring positions on most of the major issues of today.
The great thing about it all is we already tried todays conservatism & it didn't work.
Robert Rosencrans| 6.9.09 @ 8:05AM
On Sunday on Face the Nation Newt Gingrich was asked a question about ideological purity. It was a moment he could have shined. It was a perfect pitch he could have knocked out of the park. Instead, Newt Gingrich demurred. Here is the set up.
GINGRICH: Yes. I am a -- I am a Reagan Republican. Reagan believed in very broad base, he always talked about "my fellow Republicans" and those independents and Democrats who want a better future. A third of his votes were Democrats.
SMITH: Well, but you also have a voice of ideological purity out there that unless people kowtow to --
GINGRICH: You just shrug them off!
SMITH: So your advice to other Republicans is shrug off Rush Limbaugh?
GINGRICH: My advice is that -- that Colin Powell is a great American, I'm proud that he's Republican, and, you know, Dick Cheney is a great American. I'm proud he's Republican. I'm glad both of them are Republican.
Colin Powell's racist views are well known and he strongly approves of affirmative action, a dictatorial policy mandating racial employment disasters. Yet, Newt is glad Colin Powell is in the Republican Party. Why not let David Duke rise to the top in your opinion also Newt?
Several months ago I observed Newt Gingrich embracing the Global Warming crowd.
Newt Gingrich appears to be readying himself for a run at the top office. So he has to change himself back into a Washingtonian. Unfortunately, the Washingtonians work off their own standards which are laced with duplicity and other deceptions.
In terms of embracing racists and racism here's a quote from Saul Alinsky, one of Obama's mental organizers.
"A racially integrated community is a chronological term timed from the entrance of the first black family to the exit of the last white family." Saul Alinsky (1909 - 1972) American reformer, pioneer in field of community organizations.
What you should keep in mind is that the diversity crowd and the affirmative action crowd are not after diversity or equality. They simply want to crush individualism.
In fact before Rush Limbaugh or Martin Luther King there was Ayn Rand who wrote extensively on the subject. Here's a quote which sums up the Rush Limbaugh situation and Rush Limbaugh.
"Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others."
An individualist is a man who says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.”
The Ayn Rand Column “Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column
Red Phillips | 6.9.09 @ 8:49AM
Please. The attempts by some conservatives to make MLK over into some kind of moderate advocate for "color blindness" is embarrassingly absurd. MLK was a radical liberal. Were he alive today does anyone really believe he would oppose affirmative action in the name of color blindness? If so, you don't know the man's record. Conservative MLK revisionism is craven and pathetic pandering to the PC crowd for their blessing in addition to being a grossly distorted retelling of the man's history. Well news flash conservatives, you ain't going to get PC approval so you might as well quit emasculating yourselves trying.
I have a brilliant idea. How 'bout conservatives pick other actual conservatives to emulate.
Basil Plumley| 6.9.09 @ 8:57AM
Mr. Lord,
You have, what I would call, a "happy talent" for stating the obvious. I think she will still get on the bench but if the GOP want to retain the support of Conservatives, they will have to commit themselves to Armageddon with regard to this nomination and all of Obama's flawed policies.
Much to the chagrin of the resident "moderate" Bob, Limbaugh (as well as Lord and others here) are leading Conservatives and hopefully the GOP out of the wilderness of political correctness.
There are many "moderates" who think the "road of good intentions" will lead them to Nirvana and/or invitations to the best cocktail parties.
Unfortunately, that road leads to false hope and wrack and ruination.
Republicans in the dark| 6.9.09 @ 9:07AM
Famous speeches
> I have a dream speech - Martin Luther King.
The "I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King is recognised as perhaps one of the best speeches ever given. We have reprinted it here in full.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.
One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.
So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.
Martin a man of vision| 6.9.09 @ 9:16AM
Katernia under George W Bush, proved this dead saint, right again, and again.
He failed the Black people and the poor white people, he was a failure, in a time of great need by the American people.
He failed the American people by speaking what was untrue, to go to war with the Iraqi people who had done nothing to the American people, which resulted in the death of over 4.5 thousand American lives.
George Bush was a failure, in every sense of the word. And the most unpopular President in recent times.
Obama is trying to repair the broken bridges, to find peace. And also trade with the outside world, during George W Bush term in office, the world truned it's back on America, as a result America is in decline as people choose China instead of America.
Hope| 6.9.09 @ 9:23AM
When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
I hope and pray the Palestinians will be able to say that one day. Free at last, thank god we're free at last.
Indiana Alex| 6.9.09 @ 9:24AM
Welcome back Mathew! I knew you couldn't stay away very long.
Bobbi| 6.9.09 @ 9:31AM
When you have absolutely NOTHING to bring to the conversation, blame Bush. Martin-did you even bother to READ the article?!? Please don't bother to answer. Your "comment" already does.
NavyBrat| 6.9.09 @ 9:36AM
Martin A Man of Vision:
Ok, DJ, change the record. This "Bush this, Bush that" song & dance is getting a little tiresome now. This article had NOTHING to do with Bush or Katrina, or any of the other idiotic bile you spewed in your prattling post. Ask School Bus Nagin how that evacuation plan worked out for him, or was THAT Bush's fault, too?
Also, I guess if you think that Bush took us to war based on a "lie," then you might want to castigate the intel services of France, Britain, & Germany, since they all concurred with the CIA's assessment. You also might want to think outside your little latte insulated provincial world to make the educated guess that those weapons went over the border to Syria. Oh, & lets not forget the yellowcake uranium that we removed from Iraq last summer & sent to Canada for destruction.
As for the comparison of Rush to King, I agree. To read the excerpts from the writings & speaking of both men, it's uncanny the resemblance in their thought processes. Both of these men have no time for "moderation." There are many more things in life that are black & white than are gray. Both King & Limbaugh realize this, & are willing to call out these weak kneed cowards known as moderates. I must admit, that when I read the headline, I was a little taken aback at the comparison. Not because of the content of anything Rush has said, but just the comparison & curiosity was enough to suck me in. Excellent comparison, Mr. Lord. Job well done.
John Navratil| 6.9.09 @ 9:40AM
MLK may have been a radical liberal, but that is not his legacy. No one talks of MLK the agititator, the radical, the philanderer except in circles of the aggrieved. It is "I have a dream". Historically incomplete, or inaccurate, it may be. Fortunately for MLK, and for us, he is remembered for his best ideals, not his worst. Which, by the way, is why the worst race hucksters in this country fight amongst each other to claim his mantle.
Mr. Lord gets it right and the comparisons are apropos. One needn't feel sorry for the conservatives to acknowledge that the Republican Party has abandoned principles in favor of the procedural game of maintaining a vote count. This tactic has led them to the precipice where the ONLY thing to scrap for is the possibility to fillibuster. There isn't much left, is there.
Mr. Rosencrans give Gingrich short shrift, but perhaps he should have completed Gingrich's comments. He said there is no membership committee to declare who is and who isn't a Republican. He said he repected Powell but was more aligned with Cheney and Limbaugh. Then he said if Powell wants to take the Party somewhere to get right after it. He wants people, even those whose positions he does not support, to fully participate and there was no ideoligical litmus test. It is a litmus test of sorts which is being imposed by the Cornyns and other "moderates". What purpose does the national party serve by entering a PRIMARY race to help shape the future Senate as in the Crist/Rubio race in Florida? If it isn't ideological, what is it? And the ideology appears to put the Party above principles. Not good!
Robert Rosencrans| 6.9.09 @ 10:00AM
Someone claims I gave Newt Gingrich "short shrift" by not quoting him in entirety. That's not true, but let's give Mr. Gingrich another opportunity to clear the air and define himself. Here he is defending Nancy Pelsoi and Global Warming. In this interview, Newt Gingrich claims that if you're asking for proof on Global Warming, you're standing off the stage screaming, "No." What a crock. Enjoy!
Last week, NewsBusters reported the peculiar occurrence of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appearing alongside current Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a global warming ad funded by Nobel Laureate Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.
Included in this piece was an explanation the former Speaker offered at his website regarding this matter which sparked largely uncomplimentary reactions in the rightosphere as well as from conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
Two days later, Gingrich appeared on Fox News's "O'Reilly Factor," and answered Rush (video embedded right):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
I disagree fundamentally with Rush on this question because I believe we have a good case to make. We made it last year in contract with the earth. I'm going to keep making it. We, for example, let's invest in the clean coal plant in Illinois and prove you can use America's natural resources without damaging the environment.
Gingrich answered some of his other critics as well; what follows is a partial transcript of this segment.
O'REILLY: Continuing now with former Speaker of the House and current FOX News analyst Newt Gingrich
You may have noticed there are a series of television commercials running, pairing unlikely people like Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson there. The commercials are produced by Al Gore's company, and are designed to bring awareness to environmental concern s. Now, we got a kick out of seeing the latest one. Nancy Pelosi and Mr. Gingrich.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY PELOSI: Hi, I'm Nancy Pelosi, lifelong Democrat and speaker of the house.
NEWT GINGRICH: Hi, I'm Newt Gingrich, lifelong Republican and I used to be speaker.
PELOSI: We don't always see eye to eye, do we, Newt?
GINGRICH: No,, but we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.
PELOSI: We need cleaner forms of energy and we need them fast.
GINGRICH: If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need.
PELOSI: Go to wecansolveit.org. Together we can do this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: You know, she's looking rather adoringly at you. You know, it's kind of like Hansel and Gretel there. You know? You guys should have been in leder hosen. I -- she really looks like she likes you.
GINGRICH: What a way to spend a Friday evening getting you raking me over the coals.
O'REILLY: Tell me about Nancy Pelosi. She won't talk to me. In fact, she tried to get me fired because I made a joke out of San Francisco. They didn't want the military. The next time, there was a terror attack around their own. But tell me about Nancy Pelosi? Do you like her? Do you have a cordial relationship with her?
GINGRICH: She is -- look, she is a very tough, very professional, very wealthy, liberal woman who earned becoming speaker. She -- I knew Nancy back when she was the national committee woman before she came to Congress. She worked very hard as a liberal Democrat. She is about 70 miles to the left of me. And she's a tough professional. We're not personal friends but I respect that she managed to get to be Speaker of the House.
O'REILLY: Honest woman?
GINGRICH: But I want to say something, Bill, that's going to surprise you maybe. I believe conservatives have got to get in the habit of being right on the same stage and being prepared to debate what are the right things to do about the environment. And I don't think standing offstage and yelling no is a strategy.
O'REILLY: Well, that's what you write in your "Real Change." And that's why, you know, I think the book's a bestseller, because we have to engage the issue of, you know, the environment. It's an important Issue. And everybody should want a cleaner planet.
Now whether God is causing global warming or it's the carbons, nobody knows, but I agree with you.
But let's get back to Pelosi for a moment. She is a very, very left- wing woman, but she represents the most radical part of the country. Do her -- does she really believe in income redistribution and a soft approach to terrorism and all these other things? Does she believe that?
GINGRICH: I suspect she does. There was a terrific book in 2004 by two economist reporters called "The Right Country" in which they explain America. And they compared Speaker Pelosi's district and speaker Hastert's district. And they pointed out that San Francisco is different from almost anywhere else in America.
So, I mean, here's a person who goes back home, all of her major donors are on the left, all of her social activities on the left, all of her conversations are on the left. I suspect, you know, I mean, I happen to think that a lot of that stuff is nuts, but I think that probably she sincerely now is so surrounded by that, that she believes it. I don't think she's insincere.
O'REILLY: But here's - you know, if I could interview her, I would say look, you were very nice to the pope, Mrs. Speaker. And you're a Roman Catholic. You were raised that way. You still go to church.
And now you're the biggest pro-abortion person in the country. I mean, how do you -- what is that? You know, those are the kinds of things with Nancy Pelosi that I'm like I don't get it. I don't understand it at all. Can you reconcile that?
GINGRICH: No, there's not a question of reconciling. There's a whole generation of liberals who made a series of decisions that their secular values were more important than their religious values. And that's where they are. That's who they are.
I mean, I can - I actually respect the integrity of her position, because she would say bluntly that she disagrees with the pope. Now I'll let you get involved in what that means from a Catholic hierarchical perspective. But I think that she is an honest, hardline left wing to the left of normal liberalism. And I think that that is an accurate reflection of the district that she represents. It's very dangerous for the Democratic party because it means that their national leader is probably 40 points to the left of the country.
O'REILLY: All right. But she did like you. I just noticed that on the couch. She had that look. Limbaugh says you were wrong to do this. Gave you jazz and said you're playing into the hands of what Limbaugh considers the enemy. 30 seconds.
GINGRICH: I disagree fundamentally with Rush on this question because I believe we have a good case to make. We made it last year in contract with the earth. I'm going to keep making it. We, for example, let's invest in the clean coal plant in Illinois and prove you can use America's natural resources without damaging the environment.
O'REILLY: All right, Mr. Speaker. "Real Change", "Day of Infamy" coming out. Thanks very much.
CIA's assessment| 6.9.09 @ 10:05AM
NavyBrat
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm BBC NEWSNIGHT REPORT - Transcript
The CIA and Saudi Arabia, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. Did their connections cause America to turn a blind eye to terrorism? There is a hidden agenda at the very highest levels of our government.
......
TRENTO (AUTHOR, "SECRET HISTORY OF THE CIA"): If you recruited somebody who is a member of a terrorist organisation, who happens to make his way here to the US, and even though you're not in touch with that person anymore but you have used him in the past, it would be unseemly if he were arrested by the FBI and word got back that he'd once been on the payroll of the CIA. What we're talking about is blow-back. What we're talking about is embarrassing, career-destroying blow-back for intelligence officials.
......
GREG PALAST: In the hall of mirrors that is the US intelligence community, Wildes, a former US federal attorney, said the FBI field agents wanted the documents, but they were told to "see no evil."
Diamon| 6.9.09 @ 10:07AM
The issue is not unlike any of the other ones that "moderates" of either party want to avoid a robust discussion on the merits.
For gays it's the discussion of traditional marriage and their claim to the right. Their claim involves the equal protection clause but ask them if it's acceptable for two bisexual men and a woman to wed and they can't apply the same principle to that situation. In fact to many gays, bisexual is not gay.
For discrimination, those of either party claim to aspire to a society based on meritocracy but ask them to apply that standard without prejudice and their position crumbles like a sand castle.
Abortion advocates claim a woman's privacy right is more valuable than a human life but nowhere is that standard applied to the father's rights as if the man has no role in the conception process.
Some death penalty supporters apply a different standard to abortion. Either all life is in the hands of the creator or it is not. Either it is acceptable to man to take a life or it is not. The wiggle room is kill or be killed but then the conditions creep into the exceptions.
During the Anita days many women came together to rise against male tyranny. As a young man I got plenty of cultural lecture about a woman's equal rights in the workplace and society. Men should share in all the burdens of family. I attended more than one sexual harassment training session. But then when it came to dating, the old rules applied. Speaking of dating rules, many enlightened women claim to want a caring, sensitive man who is in touch with his feelings but then go for the opposite.
The elderly chafe at being put on a shelf but then thought John McCain was too old to be president according to surveys. The MSM didn't disavow this opinion or lecture about the small-mindedness of it.
Liberal states in the north particularly support quality education for all except that when it comes to "those people" in their own backyard then any attempt to apply free market strategies such as vouchers for students from failing schools it's a non-starter.
Both parties start off ignoring everything, little or large, that their president does or says. But eventually the straws add up and the popularity goes south unless you're a Democrat. Then no standard applies to policy or conduct. NAFTA bad but the man who ushered it in is good. War is bad but the man who expands it is good.
Alternative energy such as wind is good! But not in my backyard, especially anywhere near where my family sails their yachts! Clean burning gas is good and coal is bad!! But no LPG platform anywhere near my state! It's dangerous!!!
To quote a line in the Godfather: " Senator, we're all part of the same hypocrisy."
Those on the left that enjoy childish name calling should look in the mirror and judge themselves and their positions on any of these social issues. Tolerance for opinions is for everybody, not just for the liberal opinion.
Steve| 6.9.09 @ 10:10AM
Wonderful article, Mr. Lord....here's how the libs get screwed on this. Yeah, MLK may have been a radical collectivist of dubious character, but he SAID wonderful things. Conservatives are simply giving MLK the benefit of the doubt that he believed them, and they are applauding him for it. This puts lefties on the horns of a dilemma: either MLK believed what he said, putting him (in an honorable place) beside the hated Limbaugh -- or, he was just another wink and a nod, lying leftwing SOB (as in the current POTUS) who merely mouths platitudes in order to curry affection with the unwashed, in no way taking seriously what he himself spouts. That appears to be the way various lefty commenters are viewing MLK, in which case they simply spit on their own icon. Whatever.
Robert Rosencrans| 6.9.09 @ 10:13AM
Here's the complete transcript from the Gingrich interview on Deface the Nation. The only part I left out is where Newt claims some conservatives should be thrown under the bus. How Obama like! But even more interesting is Limbaugh's response.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/07/david_axelrod_and_newt_gingrich_on_face_the_nation_96886.html
GINGRICH: But I just said, I'm happy to say, let's base it on 64 percent of Californians, many of whom are younger minorities, would represent a very diverse party overnight. And -- and -- and go back and look at Reagan in ‘79: 21 percent of the country was Republican in 1979. Reagan defeated Carter decisively a year later because he was open to everybody who was unhappy.
SMITH: Well, but you also have a voice of ideological purity out there that, unless people kowtow to...
GINGRICH: Yes, shrug them off.
SMITH: Shrug them off?
GINGRICH: None of them -- Reagan shrugged them off. Reagan was frequently attacked. I talked to Michael Reagan the other night, you know...
SMITH: Right.
GINGRICH: ... Governor -- President Reagan's son, who pointed out that Reagan had done all sorts of things that were deviances from the conservative purity, but people knew in general he was a conservative and people accepted that he was as a conservative. And he built a very broad coalition.
SMITH: So your advice to other Republicans is shrug off Rush Limbaugh?
GINGRICH: My -- my advice is that -- that Colin Powell is a great American. I'm proud that he's Republican. And, you know, Dick Cheney is a great American. I'm proud he's Republican. I'm glad both of them are Republicans.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060809/content/01125109.guest.html
RUSH: Okay. For the record, Newt and all the rest of you in the Drive-By Media --- speaking for myself and all the other conservatives I know -- I'm not a purist. We're conservatives, plain and simple, Newt. Now, we conservatives don't always agree with each other. Yeah, Ronald Reagan got a lot of independents and Democrats, but how did he do it? He didn't pretend he was one of them! He didn't pretend to be a Democrat. He didn't pretend to be an independent. Reagan persuaded them. Reagan made them want to join him. Reagan did not change who he was to attract those independents and Democrats. Colin Powell voted for Obama. Colin Powell found McCain unacceptable. If that's the kind of Republican we want to be proud of, somebody is going to have to explain it to me.
We want to proclaim how proud we are of somebody who not only endorsed Obama strategically at a time to do the most damage to the Republican nominee, he voted against the Republican nominee, after that Republican nominee was the precise candidate that Colin Powell supposedly thinks the party should advance. Shrug off purists? Nope. We're not purists. We're conservatives. We don't always agree with each other. I don't care if Powell stays a Republican or becomes a Democrat. It doesn't matter to me what he does, but don't tell me that he's the model for the party. If Colin Powell is the model for the Republican Party, there's no reason to ever vote Republican again -- and I'll just ask again. I asked Hannity this last week on the two-part interview: Somebody tell me what Republican policies Colin Powell champions. What conservative policies does he champion? Where is he out there trying to help rebuild the Republican Party other than tearing me down?
Where is he opposing what Obama's doing? So it goes on. But never fear, folks. I have never said, "The era of Reagan is over." I have never said that I want to be a part of a party, that in order get Democrats and independents goes out and acts like them and enacts policies that they would like. I am not going to do that. (interruption) Have I done what about Pelosi on global warming? No, I have not sat down with Nancy Pelosi on global warming. You mean the couch and the TV ad? No, no. And, by the way, I was asked. I never told you. I was asked to do one of those commercials. I forget who with. But I was asked to sit down and do one of those commercials on global warming with Michael Moore. They asked me to sit down with Michael Moore, for the good of the country, for the good of the issue -- and I refused to do it. I also have not joined Mrs. Clinton for a conference promoting her health care plan. (sigh) Oh, boy. Never worry, folks. I'm the bulwark, not wavering. I'm the Last Man Standing if necessary.
wonderful things| 6.9.09 @ 10:16AM
Facts are not really based on left or right. Issues which has merit, is not only a left and a right issue.
But based more on how we can use information to improve the lives of all people.
Jeremy Davis| 6.9.09 @ 10:50AM
Mr. Lord makes some good points, but can we please stop using MLK, JFK, etc. to justify the actions of today's conservatives. I find it rather unseemly.
John Navratil| 6.9.09 @ 12:13PM
Mr. Rosencrans,
My apologies. I was remembering a Karl Rove interview on Fox News Sunday.
I realize you take exception to Gingrich suggesting Powell is a great American. I don't admire him much after his stint at the State Department, either. But Gingrich isn't saying the Republican Party should be as defined by Powell, but rather that there must be room for debate in any party big enough the lead. He has also suggested that if the Party keeps up its marginalization of conservatives, that a third party may be the result.
As attractive as that may be in the abstract, I suspect that would marginalize conservatives for a generation. Perot's third party bid arguably caused the GOP defeat by Clinton in 1992. It is important for conservatives to use the best vehicle available to achieve political strength. Hold your nose, but I think it is the Party.
That said, I haven't given the Party any money in almost 20 years. Mine goes to the candidate and will until the Party more reliably represents my views.
J.C.Eaton| 6.9.09 @ 12:14PM
Mr. Lord: You wrote an excellent article. You understand Mr. Limbaugh and you interpret him well. You are appropriately civil in respect of Rev. King's more useful asseverations and you do a nice, interesting, and comprehensive job of intertwining the personalities and positions of the two.There was in fact, only one dulling and depressing note in the whole concerto: INJECTING THE NAME OF THE WUS, PUSILANIMUS NEWT GINGRICH in the same breath and station of Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh has guts; Gingrich has none[he immediately wilted under criticism of his "racist" reference to the execrable Sotomajor], Limbaugh has constancy; Gingrich does not. Colin Powell is someone he's proud of...a goof that renounced" his " party and his supposed friend. Limbaugh has a self-deprecating ability to laugh at himself; Gingrich is a craven self-absorbed little man who shriveled and was intimidated in and by the presence of the wondrous "man", Bill Clinton. This latest by his own admission. Write about any topic you like, you have a gift, but for the love of Pete, don"t include Limbaugh with Gingrich in any favorable sense. Best,
Shiela| 6.9.09 @ 12:38PM
Well put. MLK's words echo in my head frequently. His words of equality for all came without condition. I am raising my children with those very lessons: to judge other's by the content of their character, their actions, their words, not the color of their skin. Rush is brilliantly provocative. Those who challenge him on this need to focus on the specifics of their grief, rather than continue talking in sweeping "us" and "them" rhetoric that goes nowhere. Rush is merely echoing MLK, isn't he?
Tim| 6.9.09 @ 12:59PM
Newt gingrich fancies himself the next President, and he speaks with this goal in mind: to get at least 51% of every audience on his side.
Rush Limbaugh is Rush Limbaugh. He has no aspiration to office, he has banked his fortune. He can speak what he actually believes. He is free and for that he is hated.
Alan Brooks| 6.9.09 @ 1:11PM
MLK was too demagogic. I'll take Thomas Sowell and conservative black progress, if social progress really exists-- which I doubt.
Robert Rosencrans| 6.9.09 @ 1:15PM
John Navatril: You're beggining to sound troll like. I never suggested or implied that I take exception to Newt Gingrich referring to Colin Powell as a Great American. I simply stated that Newt Gingrich has devolved into a Washingtonian, and his statement speaks for itself. Newt Gingrich has caved into Al Gore (Global Warming), defended Pelosi based on her constituency, which is ridiculous. Colin Powell is a leftist, and most likely a racist. Colin Powell sees no further then Affirmative Action and ignored the left of middle of the road McCain and endorsed Obama, precisely when it achieved the most damage against McCain. Is he really a Republican that one should defend? Well, as Rush Limbaugh stated so clearly, if it is the Republican Party is finished anyway.
John Navratil| 6.9.09 @ 2:33PM
Mr. Rosencrans,
Sorry! I didn't mean to sound like a troll. I did misunderstand you at first, when I confused Rove's statements for Gingrich's. I'm sorry for the confusion.
I don't deny you that Gingrich is Washingtonian. It seems you think he is a sell-out, isn't ideologically pure and, because he is a Washingtonian, isn't to be trusted. Do I understand your statements correctly?
I'll start with the premise that I think the Republican Party has sold out the conservatives. They spent like drunken sailors on social issues partnered with the biggest liberals in Washington. Why? I'd like to think it was the cost of getting defense appropriations passed the opposition, but I don't think it was even that principled.
So what do I (we?) want? I'd hope it is a return to true conservative principles for limited government and maximum freedom. How do we get there? Election of conservatives and states reasserting their sovereignty, if you ask me. Cornyn (my Senator), to name but one, doesn't appear to support either. Gingrich says he does, but rejects ideological purity as a means of doing so as it cannot possibly expand the party which appears necessary. I don't think these are in conflict as only a dictator can be truly ideologically pure, everyone else just pretends.
I thought the ad with Pelosi on Global Warming was ridiculous, but his explanation of why he made it sounds pragmatic to me. Here it is:
"...First of all, I want to be clear: I don't think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don't think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.
But here's what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that's a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can't have a slogan of "Just yell no!"
I have a different view. I think it's important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we're going to get the former. That's why I took part in the ad."
With luck, Waxman-Markey will go down in flames in the Senate and this issue will fade. It's too early to make that bet.
His defense of Perlosi based on her constituency doesn't appear ridiculuous to me at all. We have elections where the people choose whom they want based on what the candidate believes (or sells) to the electorate. Pelosi will be out in 2010 if the people so decide, and it they want her she will stay. Perhaps Cindy Sheehan has a chance, but Jeff Flake had better find other employment if he moves to the bay area. Perhaps Gingrich states the obvious, but his statement seemed more about her political skills and toughness than any approval of her policies. His response to O'Reilly was:
"She is -- look, she is a very tough, very professional, very wealthy, liberal woman who earned becoming speaker. She -- I knew Nancy back when she was the national committee woman before she came to Congress. She worked very hard as a liberal Democrat. She is about 70 miles to the left of me. And she's a tough professional. We're not personal friends but I respect that she managed to get to be Speaker of the House."
I cannot speak to Powell's racism. His recent comments say he is a friend of big government. It was enough for me that he let Scooter Libbey go to the gallows when he knew all along who the real leaker was. As an General he should know that a friend like he can get you killed. I have no respect for him now, and if that is all the Republican Party has, it IS done. Still I was shocked, SHOCKED, to hear he endorsed Obama. One the other hand, if McCain was the best we had to offer, I know his choice was difficult.
I believe we reject Gingrich at our peril, even if we aren't in complete agreement. (OK, you didn't say you rejected Gingrich, but that is what I understood you to say in "...Newt Gingrich has devolved into a Washingtonian, and his statement speaks for itself.") Like it or not, there are not a lot of options for conservatives, today. I believe the Republicans (as distinct from conservatives) will get a bounce in 2010, but a bounce doesn't built a movement. Articulate people who can get the message out can. Gingrich is one of those people.
lynnrockets | 6.9.09 @ 2:56PM
FLIPPER TWINS
(sung to the TV theme of “Flipper”)
We call them flip-flops, flip-flops,
Their voices are frightening,
“Racist is she”, “Oh, no” so says we,
Limbaugh and Gingrich, are just nonsensical dunders
Buckling under, on the T.V.!
“Sotomayor’s a bad nominee”
Someone said that? It couldn’t be we
Flip-floppers they are, without any peer
And how we laugh and we jeer
We call them flip-flops, flip-flops,
In need of enlightening,
Nobody may, be dumber than they,
And we know those two, could never be Batman’s Boy Wonders
Brains gone asunder, most every day!
Chris| 6.9.09 @ 4:06PM
Well done, Mr. Lord. I would just like to add a quote from another great conservative along this line of thinking. It was Barry Goldwater who said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Also, people who go along to get along, people who want to be "nice," and people who want to be liked are not true leaders. They're self-absorbed narcissists. The genuine leaders are people like the Rev. King and Mr. Limbaugh because their most important concern isn't being liked. Their primary concerns are truth and justice. People who stick their necks out when others can't or don't want to do it. Others benefit from a better world created by the sacrifices such men(and women) make. It's what makes them truly great.
Old Texican| 6.9.09 @ 4:19PM
Newt could not get elected...period paragraph!
Get over it!
We gotta' get conservatives who lucked out with their first marriage...never smoked pot...and never...ever...made a mistake.
Hmmm. Those conservatives never ventured far from the nest did they?
Spineless...non mistake ...idiots!
It is getting very very scarey, people.
Marcell| 6.9.09 @ 4:25PM
Not flip-flop... more like "Spin."
On one page there is a conservative crowd, so they tell them what they want to here.
Now, flip-flop to the next page. This time it is a moderate crowd. That is where you can here your favorate conservative telling them what they want to here as well.
Flip flop to the next page & tell them what they want to here too.
As you flip through channels on your TV, you might just find your favorite conservative advocating socialized medicine.
Then you can flip to another channel & see another one of your favorate conservative helping Fox news paint a false picture of all Democrats just to make those who get their news there feel good; that person is explaining how all Democrats are socilist.
Then you flip over to your favorate conservative blog & read another Newt types spinning another angle as if they come to a belief that you only get your news from one type of source.
Yes indeed you will see & hear all these webs being spun from our next conservative candidate.
Don't leave out Rush, because he will inspire most of his supporters to buy & market the spin.
The spin & the flip flops are just another example of a politician having no core value; they just want to win, so they can go to Washington & advocate their ideals & most of it don't have anything to do with liberal or conservative.
It is exacly how we end up with a President Bu$h.
Marcell| 6.9.09 @ 4:27PM
Wow!!
The word is HEAR!!
Old Texican| 6.9.09 @ 4:34PM
Hello Marcell, honey
When you get your tiny little testi***s blown off, or your mommy's front door kicked down, you will have grown up.
Until then, just go mind your own business and allow adults to converse.
Thank you
lynnrockets | 6.9.09 @ 4:36PM
THE HO HO SONG
(sung to the Ringo Starr song “The No No Song”)
A doctor that I know just came from the pharmacy
He smiled at Rush and opened up his hand
Then he held out some oxycontin tablets
He said they were the finest in the land
And Rush said, “Ho ho ho ho”
Do you have any more
My back is feeling really damn sore
If I say please
Can I have more of these
My habit has become really hardcore
A ditto-head I know said he could make organs grow
He smiled and said Rush would not need his hand
Then he gave him some blue viagra pills, Oh
And said things would rise upon his command
And Rush said, “Ho ho ho ho”
Do you have any more
My love life has become such a chore
Please, pretty please
I’m flying overseas
The boys there like it when it hits the floor
A friend of Rush Limbo who wears a hat made of tin
Came on the show and opened up his hand
When he revealed twelve tablets of vicodin
Rush was so happy he performed handstands
And Rush said, “Ho ho ho ho”
Do you have any more
I always come to you for a score
Without more of these
I’m in a cold-turkey freeze
And ditto-heads need someone to adore
Pat Tillman| 6.9.09 @ 4:37PM
Please don't refer to King as a Dr.
He plagarized his thesis. And was an adulterer. And criminal. Not a role
model for any but the decrepit.
Old Texican| 6.9.09 @ 4:42PM
Hi Lynnrockets
Welcome!
(I lied, grin)
I have a bad back that screams at me 24/7
Tell me about you.
Have you ever been shot, (by bullets), or blown up?
Have you ever lifted a load too heavy for you, and blown out joints to save brothers in arms?
If not...
...shut up and go play in your sandbox.
lynnrockets | 6.9.09 @ 4:43PM
@"Pat Tillman"
You should use a more appropriate phony name. Maybe something like "KKK Man". To downplay Dr. King's educational accomplishments when one considers that Limbaugh flunked out of two safety schools, shows your ignorance. the real Pat Tillman would be ashamed of you.
Old Texican| 6.9.09 @ 4:51PM
Pat
Hush!
Reverend King paid the ultimate price for his beliefs, right or wrong.
Personally, I gotta' admire the man....with all his faults.
This little water-pistol lynnrockets shall never earn a dime for speaking his infantile so-called thoughts.
Mr. Limbaugh has earned millions.
...but the lynnrockets will be wearing the powder blue shirts and coming for us in the early morning hours.
Let's shoot a couple of thousand of them, shall we?
lynnrockets | 6.9.09 @ 5:24PM
@ Old Texican
The only portion of your last post that was worthy of repeating was, "Pat, Hush!"
lynnrockets | 6.9.09 @ 5:32PM
@ Old Texican
I just read your 4:42 pm post. Just wondering, but did Rush Limbo ever get shot (by bullets), or blown up? Did Limbo ever lift loads too heavy for him and blow out joints to save his brothers in arms? If not, then what is the point in your argument for defending that hypocrite? You and the phony Pat Tillman make a pretty good pair.
Patriot| 6.9.09 @ 6:13PM
Sprockets, still your nasty snide self. A worthless little puke like you doesn't have the right to speak Pat Tillman's name; or Rush Limbaugh's for that matter.
You have no shame, libtard moron.
lynnrockets | 6.9.09 @ 6:20PM
@ Patriot
That's all very nice. Now run along, adults are trying to talk here.
Marcell| 6.9.09 @ 7:02PM
Hi Old Texican
I believe my truths inspire people like you to spew your vitriol towards my direction, & I love it because it inspires other Democrats in high places to follow my lead.
Even if you don't want to be my punching bag, someone else will because they can't help but to get angry with what I say... the truth hurts.
=)
Patriot| 6.9.09 @ 7:06PM
Sprockets, after all of the inane, puerile drivel you've spewed on this web-site you don't qualify. Go back under your rock, troll.
kdb| 6.9.09 @ 7:23PM
Let's be real. Rush Limbaugh can hardly be compared to the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Perhaps the author has proven that, taken out of context, spoken words can bear a vague resemblance.
But the character and motivation of the two men is entirely at odds. Rush Limbaugh is a Media Mogul. His only motivation is to profit from the angst his words stirs up. He is not a Spiritual Leader, guiding the ethical path of a nation. He is not a martyr to any cause greater than himself.
He is an Armchair Critic, full of retrospective bombastic diatribe and sarcasm. Rush wouldn't feed people's dreams and ideals; he has none of his own. He wouldn't march down a street for any cause other than to feed his ego on parade. Unable to walk that far, he'd probably rather be chauffered in a limo, or better yet, remain in his plush office smoking a fat cigar. His motive is ultimately only profit, which is his definition of the American Dream. The issues he discusses are only the vehicle to his own ends.
I'm only holding up a mirror of truthfulness, and reflecting on the differences between Rush and MLK. Rush might as well be compared to Ghandi....except that we know full well he would never sacrifice his luxurious existence to put himself on a starvation diet for a "Cause Greater than Himself".
I find more similarities, frankly, between Rush and another black reverend, Al Sharpton. But even more between him and Herman Goerring, the mouthpiece of the Third Reich.
That's just my opinion.
Patriot| 6.9.09 @ 7:25PM
"I believe my truths..." Damn, what a moron; who talks like this? Keep speaking your truths, tool--in the meantime your Obummer is getting his @ss kicked with 9.4%--and rapidly rising--unemployment.
It's just a matter of time before you Fascist losers are tossed onto the ash heap of history. Can't come too soon for AMERICAN PATRIOTS like me.
That's the truth!
Marcell| 6.9.09 @ 7:36PM
He is an Armchair Critic, full of retrospective bombastic diatribe and sarcasm. Rush wouldn't feed people's dreams and ideals; he has none of his own. He wouldn't march down a street for any cause other than to feed his ego on parade. Unable to walk that far, he'd probably rather be chauffered in a limo, or better yet, remain in his plush office smoking a fat cigar.
*******************
& MLK wasn't a radical, "The bigots were the radicals," in those days.
The one thing I do like about Rush is that he moderated "most" of the Southern bigots with guys like Newt & the Bu$h family.
Violett| 6.9.09 @ 7:41PM
KDB, if anyone is the Fascist--it's you. Rush is a true American Hero who speaks the truth, it's just that you liberals wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your backside. That's not my opinion, that's a fact.
Marcell| 6.9.09 @ 7:50PM
Please tell me who were the radicals in this video.
Champions of Justice: A Tribute To The Civil Rights Movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_638plRQWQ
Segregation During the Civil Rights Movement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSlvw-vEsEI
Hush with the Rush =)
Marcell| 6.9.09 @ 8:02PM
More radical liberalism... Democrats rule the internet.
=)
1960 Civil Rights Movement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYqsJizN4gI
kdb| 6.9.09 @ 8:34PM
So I'm a Fascist? Because I responded with my personal reactions , PC or not, in an open commentary-forum? Sorry to interrupt the flaming diatribe.
The definition of fascism, according to Wikipedia, is that the "Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the (government and) the fascist movement".
Me expressing a negative opinion about Limbaugh, a fellow U.S. citizen, subject to the same laws and standards as everybody else, should not bring down a personal attack against myself simply because my opinion was not "politically correct" . The verbal attack itself was more fascist than anything I've said so far.
Being descriptive doesn't necessarily equate with an attack on Rush. I could just as easily announced I admire his truthful sarcasm delivered with belligerent flatulence, like that of any other comedien like Jay Leno, or Al Franken....and like Franken comes to weild serious political influence.
What I hate about Rush Worshippers, is that they eventually fail to think for themselves and to form their own thoughtful opinions and protect the rights of other citizens, and instead gang up on everybody else who doesn't think like them.
Environmentalists tend to behave with the same instincts. Soon we'll all wear green shirts to replace the old brown ones.
Violett| 6.9.09 @ 8:50PM
KDB, you launched a personal attack against another citizen, Rush, by calling him a Nazi and I took exception to it--so I personally attacked you. What's your complaint, bonehead?
Do you think you are special, that you're immune from insults? That's just MY NEGATIVE OPINION about you.
What I hate about Fascist Liberals like you is that you can dish it out but you can't take it. Get used to it, wimp.
kdb| 6.9.09 @ 9:19PM
Well-spoken Violett. You sound like a very thoughtful intelligent person whose opinions would make worthwhile reading. I'll look forward to more of them but I haven't seen any other than what you call your attack on me.
Violett| 6.9.09 @ 9:59PM
If you call Rush Limbaugh a Nazi expect verbal reprisals, troll.
Grow up.
Marcell| 6.9.09 @ 11:10PM
Liberals busting up Newt's Spin:
Newt's small world
June 9: Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich drew applause from Republicans for decrying the idea of being a citizen of the world apparently forgetting that famed GOP leader Ronald Reagan famously declared himself a citizen of the world. Bloomberg News' Margaret Carlson discusses whether Gingrich is the right leader for the Republican Party.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31194584#31194584
CC Ryder| 6.9.09 @ 11:28PM
Bust on Newt all you want, tool--he's not a contender.
See Saw of Justice| 6.10.09 @ 12:09AM
History just laughs at you. You are the party of the south, of racism, of poorly thought out mass emails. This is a poor attempt.
Mr. Spectator| 6.10.09 @ 12:11AM
Well, wuzhuhai has a point.
Patriot| 6.10.09 @ 12:37AM
No, stupid, you Demoncrats are the party of the South. You also are responsible for slavery, lynching blacks for decades and Jim Crow laws.
How will you liberals ever live down your shame?
We Republicans are the party of Lincoln--remember him? He freed the slaves. Too bad you never opened a History book in your life, libtard.
Marcell| 6.10.09 @ 5:48AM
Patriot
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Rearden| 6.10.09 @ 7:45AM
Red,
MLK was a registered Republican, as most black were, before LBJ re-enslaved many with the Great Society. Look it up, MLK was GOP.
sbark| 6.10.09 @ 8:04AM
Libs......search Am Spec. site for article called "the missing years"....details the Democrat party allegiance to racism as a foundation of thier party.....until of course they discovered it could be used as a way to power....much like their other "religions" Envir, Abortion, Unions, Big Govt etc........
lynnrockets | 6.10.09 @ 1:26PM
YOU’RE A HAS-BEEN, NEWT GINGRICH
(sung to the Dr, Seuss song “The Grinch That Stole Christmas”)
You’re a has-been, Newt Gingrich
You’re lacking in appeal
Your were ousted as The Speaker
No one wants to hear you squeal
Newt Gingrich
You’re a unicycle
Without even one wheel
You’ve had three wives, Newt Gingrich
A mistress in the hole
Philandering’s your day job
You’re a slimy ugly troll
Newt Gingich
These woman that like you, must
Be on work release or parole
You’re a vile one, Newt Gingrich
Your words reek with rancid bile
Your criticism of Bill Clinton
As you’re cheating all the while
Newt Gingrich
There couldn’t be a bigger hypocrite
Within a Midwest country mile
You’re a foul one, Newt Gingrich
Your first divorce smelled of skunk
Your wife, Jackie fighting cancer
You told her she was junk
Newt Gingrich
The nicest words to describe you,
Are, as follows, and I quote, Pink. Wank, Punk
You’re a coward, Newt Gingrich
Avoided your army spot
Deferment-seeking chicken-hawk
That likes to talk real tough
Newt Gingrich
Your soul is an appalling dump heap overflowing
With the most disgraceful assortment of Republican
Sound-bytes imaginable,
Mangled up in tangled up knots
You’re the racist, Newt Gingrich
It’s not Judge Sotomayor
You play the race card as a white guy
That’s so laughable I’m sure
Newt Gingrich
You’re a stinking pile of vomit
Sitting in the sun
With feces on top
Patriot| 6.10.09 @ 3:14PM
Sprockets and Marcell, shining examples of libtarditis--an infectious disease that could prove fatal for our country.
Embarrassed for what, mealy-mouthed Marcell; the truth? I notice you couldn't refute one of my facts. You Fascist liberal bigots have a dirty, racist past. Shame on you.
You Fascist bigots | 6.10.09 @ 4:23PM
Patriot| 6.10.09 @ 3:14PM
Who are you Mr/Ms Patriot, you like killing the defenceless, you Yellow belly Coward.
Prostitute to Israel.
47'000 Palestinians Murdered by Israeli Nazis.
In the past 6 Years.
Stop the killing NOW!
Marcell| 6.10.09 @ 4:58PM
47'000 Palestinians Murdered by Israeli Nazis.
........................
Jesus told the Repugs to agree with murdering thousands of Palestinians like Jesus inspired the KKK. I am not attacking Jesus; I am attacking the idiots that buy the perverted crap from their religious leaders.
Patriot| 6.10.09 @ 7:46PM
Nice post, Marcel--now you're lying about 47,000 Palestinians being killed. CRAZY LIBERALS STRIKE AGAIN. Loony tunes libs.
You people belong in a rubber room.
Marcell| 6.11.09 @ 3:43AM
Nice post, Marcel--now you're lying about 47,000 Palestinians being killed. CRAZY LIBERALS STRIKE AGAIN. Loony tunes libs.
You people belong in a rubber room.
*****************************
I don see anything that says 47,000 in that quote. It is like you people have fallen off of the yellow bus.
Here is my exact quote:
Jesus told the Repugs to agree with murdering thousands of Palestinians like Jesus inspired the KKK. I am not attacking Jesus; I am attacking the idiots that buy the perverted crap from their religious leaders.
Richard Baker| 6.11.09 @ 1:41PM
As always, the ideas behind Dr. King and Rush's statements are thrown out. Remember, since Dr. King's reasoned approach, appealing to the very core of the ideas in our founding documents, we've had Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and all the others of which Booker T. warned. So when Rush and Dr. King refer to "content of their character" how can a modern understanding and expression of that idea from the 1963 speech be bad, unless politics makes it so?
ConservativesCo-optingLiberals| 6.17.09 @ 10:05PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble but if MLK was alive today he not be as mythologized as he is now. If he ran for public office at anytime during the late 60's and maybe on up to the early 90's his character would have taken some serious hits. His FBI file would have not been under seal by act of congress and parts of it would have been fair game for the Freedom of Information Act. I don't think MLK would have been content with being just a civil rights leader. If he was alive today we would know the real man not the myth/cult of personality of today. Conservatives attempting to co-opt MLK is ridiculous and disingenuous.
Pingback| 6.19.09 @ 3:18AM
The American Spectator : Martin Luther King Limbaugh | Revitol - Health and Beauty Pr links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Adult Toys | 9.14.09 @ 4:13PM
Too much rhetoric in here.
Adult Toys
Pingback| 2.13.10 @ 6:25PM
Creative Communities Why A Life Of Creativity Needn't Be Lonely links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: