President Obama is not having an easy time with his nearly trillion dollar so-called stimulus plan, despite getting a jump-start from President Bush. In theory, as in rhetoric, doing something to stimulate the ‘economy’ is what is needed. But if what you propose is, in reality, not an economic stimulus but rather a seismic shift from free markets and limited government, to government control of markets and industry with ‘no exit plan’ (that sounds familiar), then I would hope that he would encounter opposition from Democrats and Republicans, and everyone in between. And that includes Rush Limbaugh.
Rather than trying to persuade Republicans on Capital Hill on the efficacy of his plan, he shifts the focus to a private citizen, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh. Speaking with Republicans in Washington on his first week, Obama said . . .
You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.
Echoing chief of staff Rahm Emanual’s ‘rule one,’ he stresses the urgency for action. Never mind what kind of action. Obama said . . .
We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly.
Having been brought into the discussion on Obama’s economic plan, Rush Limbaugh responds in an interview on Byron York’s blog at National Review Online.
Before I get to Rush’s response, which is below. Harken back to the campaign. Remember how the media virtually ignored and discounted Obama’s alliances with radicals like William Ayers? They characterized them as mere fleeting associations that were of no pertinent significance. The role the media played in Obama’s campaign and subsequent election is the reason people like you and I were not informed, and Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw didn’t know (or didn’t want to know) about just who he (Obama) is. ‘We don’t know a lot about him,’ said Brokaw. (Why didn’t you ask, Tom?)
In his response, Rush puts Obama’s so-called stimulus plan and motivation into proper perspective in the name of Saul Alinsky. In Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, he writes . . .
“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)
Ask yourself, is this not what we are seeing?
Rush’s response follows:
There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.
Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:
“If we don’t get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can’t let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That’s how things don’t get done in this town.”
To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.
Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn’t Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn’t they have to buy the new furnishings? What’s the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet’s office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That’s fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.
If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.
One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama’s ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
And here’s how the Huffington Post and Think Progress lie about what Obama, and Rush, said.
related links:
