It may be the oddest of ironies that Rush and Ann are making it appear that the Democrats were right all along.
Americans are bitterly divided over the conflict in Iraq and the War on Terrorism as a whole. The political right portrays it as the defining issue of our time. The left considers it not such a big deal. In his Super-Tuesday postmortem, Senator Barack Obama promised to end the 'Politics of Fear', where Republicans use the specter of terrorists to win votes. Both Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton vow to withdraw from Iraq and leave fighting al Qaeda to a fledgling and divided government.
So after a half-decade of insisting on the importance of the War in Iraq, such right-wing entities as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are now saying they may well sit out the presidential election rather than support veteran terrorism fighter John McCain; that they would rather see the Democrats win and withdraw rather than have a moderate Republican challenge that old-time conservatism. It seems almost as if they are saying the Democrats were right all along. If Iraq is not important enough for Rush and Ann to accept McCain, it certainly could not be important enough for American troops to remain.
Their concept is that one term of either Clinton or Obama would likely be enough to again turn America right; that four years of Democratic rule would assure the ascendancy of a true conservative to the White House. This thinking may have made some sense in the past, but not now. The Republicans have constantly accused the Democrats of pre-9/11 thinking, however, the sit-out-2008 concept is the ultimate in pre-9/11 thinking. What may have made sense in the past is absurd if, indeed, terrorism is the defining issue of our time.
Article comments
1 - Phil Durgin
Most of the political pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity et al, have been wrong about quite a few issues over the past 14 years.
All they needed to do is look at the damage the Republican Party has done to itself and to America to find the cause of its problems.
The Republican Party has endorsed preemptive war, Tax and Spend the likes we have never seen before, this year demanding a $3 Trillion dollar federal budget, Violations of Civil and Constitutional Rights, promoting big government and the nanny state via Medicaid Drug Prescription reimbursement.
Does this sound anything like the Republican Party of 20 years ago?
If the Republican Party was truly interested in what was good for the United States, it would look at the amount of debt that has been accumulated in its name. The $53 Trillion in unfunded Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security mandates. The incessant pillaging of those funds. The weakening of the US dollar they haven't done a thing to rectify.
The not so subtle attempts for the North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, the use of eminent domain to steal private property for corporate use.
How much more can be ignored by the party? If they truly had American interests, and in this I mean the public interest at heart, they could and should have done something about it.Why they didn't do a thing about it you will have to asked the high muckety mucks of the GOP.
Those in charge of the GOP have proven they value little about America, no longer have conservative values, show little regards for the Constitution.
They have weakened the American Armed Forces, deploying them throughout the world in vain attempts to sustain an American empire that cannot be afforded.
The politics of corruption in both parties have damaged our nation immeasurably. Blaming the pundits is just the tip of the iceberg, We have to look at ourselves as well for allowing this corruption for going on this long.
Maybe if we the people were as vigilant as we were supposed to be, what has happened to the United States could have been prevented. I guess asking our President and Congress to uphold their constitutional oaths was asking a bit to much.
Blaming the pundits is looking in the wrong direction. There are plenty to blame, starting with the politicians first should be the right track, not the pundits.
2 - cubiclegrrl
Feh, the whole Faux Noise and AM radio crowd deserve every gob of spittle hurled their way. The Streichers of the Right propped up the tinpot kleptocratic junta currently getting its mail at 1600 Pennsylvania. Not only did they keep the masses pacified with lies and attack-dog journalism, they also helped those in power believe their own jaw-jacking.
Don't dismiss them by any means. Like Rosencrantz and Gildenstern, "they did make love to this employment." True, a lot of those in power would like to throw them under the bus to exculpate themselves. Bottom line: We'll need a fleet of buses by the time the dust settles and it finally sinks in how much money and work will be involved in cleaning up the mess that the right has made.
Their unholy union of mega-corporations and mega-churches is the main problem of the GOP right now. And it won't wake up to that for another decade at least. And if that means that it spends the next twenty years in the wilderness, boo-hoo.
Whining about a nanny state on one hand and trying to roll back Roe v. Wade or ban same-sex unions is hypocrisy. So is starting elective wars that kill brown people by the thousands while wringing your hands about the "culture of death." Ditto the grandstanding about the terrorists "hating us for our freedoms" while systematically bulldozing the Bill of Rights.
Do I really need to go on? I can't believe that any Republican with half a brain can look her or himself in the mirror anymore.
The irony is that I used to consider myself a Republican. I don't particularly care for either Obama or Clinton. But I'm sure not giving Bush another term via a doddering McCain. Bad enough we took our eye off the proverbial ball in Afghanistan--he's already set his cap on starting a war with Iran. No thanks. I already lost one nephew in the past year; I'll be d--ned if I see the other two drafted to fight another phony war to line the pockets of Exxon, Halliburton, Blackwater, and whatever sugardaddies Mr. Campaign Finance Reform will be beholden to by November.
3 - charlie
You couldn't be more wrong about which party cares more about Iraq. In recent polls (seen on CNN, FNC and elsewhere), Iraq is not at the top of issues republicans care about most, with immigration usually being the top. The fact is, nearly 70% of the country, mostly democrats, independents, and some republicans put Iraq at the top or near the top of the list of issues we need to solve.
4 - Baronius
Casey, I think you miss the points that Rush and the others are making. It's not the old line of thinking ("it takes a Carter to give us a Reagan"). It's that McCain wouldn't be significantly different than the Democratic nominee in his execution of the War on Terror, and that Republicans would have more of a unified voice to oppose a Clinton or Obama than they would a McCain.
The second point is obviously true. Republicans would rally against the policies of a Democratic president, where they might go along with similar policies put forward by McCain. I don't think there will be enough Republicans in Congress to make a difference, though I could be wrong. 41-49 senators can do a lot if they're united.
The first point is nonsense. Some people cite McCain's promise to close Guantanamo, and his criticism of Bush administration survaillance policy. They also don't believe that Clinton or Obama would really follow through on their promises. But it's crazy to believe that a Dem and Rep administration would have the same policies. Their battlefield policies would be different, and I think especially their diplomatic approaches would be different. (One of them would be catastrophic, but I'm guessing we don't agree which one.)
5 - REMF
I did find it interesting how Lardbaugh called McCain an "imposter," consdiering the fact that while John McCain was serving 5 1/2 years as a POW, Lardbaugh was back home taking advantage of his medical deferment (for a pimple on his ass) stuffing his face with pizza and doughnuts.
6 - Dan
Rush has stated many times that neither Clinton nor Obama would follow through with pulling out of Iraq prematurely.
They would of course, stay the course and take credit for the successes that the biased media will stop hiding from as soon as their people get in office.
7 - Jamminsue
Dan: If you think the media is biased as "Liberal," then please look again. There are basically 5 people that control the entire public media, (TV, Newspapers, Cable, etc.
8 - Joe
#7 " February 14, 2008 @ 00:01AM " Jamminsue
Dan: If you think the media is biased as "Liberal," then please look again. There are basically 5 people that control the entire public media, (TV, Newspapers, Cable, etc.
Yes, and they're all rabid liberals.
9 - Casey Tefertiller
Baronius,
Thanks for the interesting and well-considered comments.
I suspect my position might be closer to yours than you might think. My intent was not to discuss my opinion of the Iraq War, rather to point out the inconsistency of two specific pundits. In contrast, Hannity, for example, has clearly said he will reluctantly support McCain because of the war.
As you mentioned, the concept that Sens. Clinton or Obama would provide the same national defense position as Sen. McCain is absurd and illogical. My interest was not in dealing with my own positions on the war, rather in attempting to make the point that if the war is worthy of the many sacrifices this nation has made, it certainly should be worth Limbaugh and Coulter supporting the candidate who promises to bring it to a successful conclusion rather than relying on bizarre rationalizations.
I have spent most of my life as a journalist " not of the Mapes/Rather/Blair variety, but attempting to differentiate facts and evidence from fantasies and misinformation. Very few of us have any real evidence what is truly happening in Iraq, but the Dems and Reps produce very different pictures of the situation. What makes it interesting is that such outlets as ABC news and CBS news have portrayed the surge as being effective. Liberal blogger and long-time war critic Jane Stillwater recently visited Iraq, and even she reported that the surge has provided successes. Obama/Clinton and McCain seem to have different “facts,” as with McNamee and Clemens.
My only purpose is to demonstrate the inconsistency of Limbaugh and Coulter saying on one hand that the war is worth fighting, while on the other hand dismissing the candidate who shares their position.
Thanks to you and everyone else who commented.
Casey
10 - Dan
Both Ann, and Rush, are conservatives first. Not necessarily Republicans.
In the case of Ann, she's stated that Hillary is more conservative than McCain. However tenuous that might be.
Rush hasn't endorsed anyone. He's said the obvious, that some Republicans might "sit out" rather than vote for McCain.
Neither has said they will "sit out", or that they would rather see the Democrats win and withdraw from Iraq before success there.
I don't think it's absurd to think Obama, or Hillary wouldn't prosecute the war in relatively the same way. That's Rush's opinion as well.
Although It's hard to pin them down because of their intentionally deceptive ambiguous approaches, They're not likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Obama's withdraw timetable, for example, has provisions for continued strikes on Alquada bases, should they decide to seek advantage.
A simple draw down of troops is exactly what Bush has planned. The first large scale pull back is scheduled for this summer. Almost precisely a year from the beginning of the successful surge strategy.
An strong argument could be made that with a Democrat in office, a biased media would provide fairer reporting on the war, making public opinion more favorable, and the prosecution of the war easier.
So no, I don't think there is any inconsistency in Ann, or Rush's, uneasiness with McCain.
11 - Maxibob
Since when is King Rupert the Murdoch, who must be one of the five controllers of all media, a rabid liberal, Joe?