Appears that Stephanie Miller hasn’t caught on, even Olbermann got it, perhaps the memo hasn’t reached all of the nutroot’s talking heads as she certainly has not adopted the “Obama tone.”

The following column explains the process and speaks to how Obama has manipulated his way to where he is by his mannerisms, tone, talk and temperment. Nothing really new, still, it is refreshing to see the diagnosis put together as nicely as this author does, just got to read it for your self.

McCain and others have erred by altering their own demeanor simply to play well with Obama. It’s phony and doesn’t work against him.

Well, according to Mr. Siegel, the Rush speech at CPAC has set us all free.

No More of Obama’s Talk, Tone or Temperment
Bill Siegel

The recent Rush Limbaugh speech at the CPAC conference, however, highlighted this issue of tone and temperament. Limbaugh, among many other valuable contributors, finally gave license to many conservatives and others to speak out intensely against Obama and his minions. Covered by national television news outlets, Limbaugh made it safe to angrily confront Obama responsibly and on point, in a visual medium aired to the populace. (He and others have done so on talk radio and the Internet, but those audiences mainly consist of supporters to begin with). And, just as Alinsky’s 5th , 8th, and 13th rules described in Rules for Radicals state respectively: “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon,” “keep the pressure on,” and “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” it is time for much of the abuse that was thrown for years by liberals at Bush to be redirected toward Obama. No longer is temperament or tone required in this “post-Limbaugh” century. To be clear, Limbaugh was extremely well reasoned, responsible, and unruffled in his presentation. It was his intensity that has opened the door for others to explore, expand, and extend.

“…..Obama not only expresses himself well, words are his primary tools and weapons for mass manipulation. After all, there is nothing “executive” in Obama’s history; only a history of selling himself and his rhetoric for votes. Thankfully, Rush Limbaugh has greatly paved the way for such an awakening. NOW IS THE TIME! So much for talk and temperament.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/no-more-of-obamas-talk-tone-or-temperament/2/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Rush should be tried for treason? Why? Because he dares disagree with their beloved “One,” going so far as to say that Limbaugh hopes that Obama’s ill thought plans to “CHANGE” America will fail.

‘How dare conservatives use their free speech rights to go against the will of the Democrat party!’ (sic)

‘These Republican naysayers must be silenced and quickly!’ (sic)

This is sick, and shows just the height of hypocrisy that the left wing extremists hold for any who would stand up against their plans for America. Consider the end of the Wiemar Republic and BE AFRAID. Obama’s worshipful and rabid brown shirts are coming out of hiding. Once they wrest the control of the Census and voting records from Congress and the state’s election departments, will they then target conservatives? (Remember Joe the Plumber!)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Larry, I’ll see your conservative blogger and raise you one:

All these highbrow conservative attacks on Limbaugh keep missing the point.

1) There is a certain sort of genius there that can do 15 hours of talk per week, ad hoc, and hold an audience of 20 million plus for over 20 years. There are about one or two others out of some 300 million who can do it. It may not be the same as digesting Reinhold Niebuhr or rereading the Federalist papers, but it is an uncanny talent and for over twenty years it has energized conservatives and reflected a certain populism that was lacking in its Wall Street/silk-stocking past. One could give Air America 1 trillion dollars in subsidy and it still could not match Limbaugh’s audience.

2) Unlike many of his critics, Limbaugh is consistent, and that’s why he maintains his audience. He is not going to wake up in the morning with vero possumus infatuation. Long before Barack Obama came along, he was warning his listeners about another populist maverick (from the Right) Ross Perot, and why they should not jump ship for him. For millions of conservatives the problem is not Limbaugh’s occasional over-the-top riffs that are part of the talk-show genre, but NY-DC trimmers and triangulators who get caught up in fads and waves of popularity and adjust accordingly — as if they do not have the innate common sense to see that borrowing another trillion and more dollars to cure the problems brought on by borrowing annually a half-trillion dollars is, well, insanity.

3) When commentators bring up Limbaugh’s private life in contrast to Obama’s picture-perfect image, they only emphasize the superficial. I don’t think Limbaugh would sit for 20 years listening to a white-supremacist preacher G-Ding America. I don’t think, like a Moyers, he would care all that much to learn who on his staff is gay. As is not the case with a Bill Maher or Michael Moore, those around Limbaugh like him, because they sense he is, for lack of a better word, a regular guy. That’s why he can go on about his mansion and plane since his audience senses it is more caricature than snootiness. And if you did not actually hear conservative elites tsk-tsking Limbaugh’s weight, marriages, and past addiction, then you would have to invent them doing so. We saw all that with Palin and the demonization of her multiple pregnancies, blue-collar husband, twangy speech, and Idaho B.A. Yet the reason why a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush was elected twice — and not George Bush primus — was precisely because they could resonate with the middle classes in both a cultural and social sense, an ability that transcends money but has everything to do with attitude. What scares many is not the sometimes slobby but authentic image of a blunt-talking Rush Limbaugh, but the polo-shirted pre-packaged personas of an Obama, John Edwards, or John Kerry.

In recent days, there has been a great fuss over Rush Limbaugh. It’s amazing, the attention he attracts, and the heebie-jeebies he gives people. Some of my friends have blasted him. One was in my office just yesterday, blasting him.

Okay. Rush isn’t for everybody, but who is? There are many other radio hosts on the dial, and you can choose the ones you like — or none at all. I like Rush. I think he’s right about almost everything. And I like his spirit — the sheer joie de vivre he expresses. I wish I had more of that myself.

After November’s election, Colin Powell said that Republicans have to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Since when have they ever listened to Rush? For president, the Republicans nominated probably Rush’s least favorite politician (in the GOP, that is). And I’m sure most Rush fans voted for him, because they thought he was a lot better than the alternative, which he was.

Whom did Powell support, by the way? Barack Obama, the Democrat, and the most left-wing president we have ever elected, possibly. I’m not sure that Powell Republicanism is the Republicanism the GOP should want.

And let me say a further word about John McCain — whom I admire, and whom I voted for enthusiastically. He was almost perfect for the GOP moderate types, you would have thought. He was anti-Christian Right. He was Mr. Campaign Finance Reform. He was Mr. Amnesty. He was Mr. Global Warming. He was Mr. Reach Across the Aisle.

Except for being against abortion and for free trade, he was made-to-order.

And if McCain isn’t good enough for the Powell brigades — who ever would be?

As far as I know, Rush Limbaugh isn’t running for anything. And he isn’t trying to be the face of the Republican party. He has a radio talk show. And, taking advantage of free speech in America, he says what he thinks. People are free to agree or disagree. That’s democracy. (Forgive the banality.) If you have a better argument, spell it out. One thing Rush has always been happy to do is engage with ideas.

Are his critics willing to engage with him? Or just sneer and resent?

One other thing Larry.

Not too long ago someone from Huntington Beach was criticizing cut and paste, saying that technique was the “mother’s milk” of blogs like this.

Oh wait…..

That was you.

Pot. Kettle.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Now now, Larry… there you go trying to pigeon hole one who is a Democrat-lite as a conservative again. BTW, you have lost your ability to continue using Brooks, Buckley and Gergen now, as they’ve all “seen the light”.

But you’re at a disadvantage as, you see, I heard his attempted, hysterical exchange on the Mark Levin show. I needed a laugh that day, and certainly Frum didn’t disappoint….

David Frum vs. Mark Levin
by burghnews

Levin called out Frum on his blogpost slamming Rush personally. This is the guy who wants to make the party “inclusive” while spouting off lies about Rush (whom I listen to with regularity/daily for years… and wholly recognize the lies media tells about specific quotes). Levin gave him space to defend his personal assault, and Frum blew it.

Why? Not only does Frum hate Rush, Frum is a Democrat-lite, not a Conservative. Even note his website is called “The New Majority: Building a Conservatism that can Win”.

Excuse me? We alter the principles of conversatism to cater to getting votes? In that case, what have we won truly?

To demonstrate how brain cell challeged Frum is on what constitutes a conservative, shall we use his own words from the article you ignored?

Now, of course, Mark Levin knows perfectly well where I come from. We’ve known each other for years, had dinner together. I’m a conservative Republican, have been all my adult life.

I volunteered for the Reagan campaign in 1980. I’ve attended every Republican convention since 1988.

I was president of the Federalist Society chapter at my law school, worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and wrote speeches for President Bush—not the “Read My Lips” Bush, the “Axis of Evil” Bush.

I served on the Giuliani campaign in 2008 and voted for John McCain in November.

I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

zzzzzzzz…. if this is one that defines “conservatism” merely by his resume, we be in deep doo doo. And certainly none of his life’s events, however boring, articulate what conservatism is.

Ever the whiner, Frum continued to attempt to collect his shattered cajones (which he should, based on his hysterical, wounded victim performance against “the great one”, Levin) on his blog. The “great one”, Levin, is no dummy and Frum was plainly at a disadvantage for philosphy, and fact.

Sorry, Larry. Rush stands up daily and is *very* inclusive… no gender, no race, no economic divisions in what he has to say. *All* Americans. Frum stands up and talks about acquiesence merely to win. That’s not conservatism… that’s abandonment of principle merely to call yourself a “majority”. And that’s a “win” even I don’t want.

Suggestion: Drop Frum from your “conservative” definition if you need to pad your comments. Ain’t gonna fly, because this Audio and the link to Frum’s personal tear down of Rush will live on Levin’s site for a long time. And I will never hesitate to bring up to you what Frum’s real agenda was, and how he spent an entire segment trying to dodge it… then ran screaming “foul!” at the top of his lungs.

Tell you what… I’ll be happy to hand him over to your party. He’s closer to you than conservatives anyway. Take him. Then he won’t further damage my beliefs.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

From a conservative blogger:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word—we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise—and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This is why I don’t get cable. People blah blah blahing to fill up air space just isn’t news, nor is it entertaining. I’m sure advertisers love it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@james manning: So James, you approve of political murder?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

bottom line on this is simple. If BO shoots at a thousand targets and tries to do them all at once in normal times, he would fail. If you shoot all your bulletts out at the same time in the first days of a long battle when the enemy is surrounding you, your only last resort is to call in the artillery onto your position and hope you survive. I think the democrats socialist are already calling in artillery onto the core of America because they know this may be their last chance to socialize this country. They feel they have nothing to lose so they are going for broke. Their rhetoric about using the crisis is pure socialist strategy. The house foundation has not just cracks but the entire foundation is sinking and while doing very little on this, they are calling in teams to redecorate the bath, renovate the landscaping, add 400 spas, and while they are at all this they have the team from extreme makeover arriving. The agenda for the socialist plan was building since Reagan took power. The started to do their thing in 1992 with Clinton and pushed gays in the military and Hilary care along with other agenda items and got beat bad in 94. What they learned I guess is that you need a massive crisis. So in the second term, Clinton and his cronies started pushing freddie and fannie to get those who could not afford homes into ones that made no sense. Banks were pushed to make crazy loans and knowing that there is a strong element of greed in the banking industry, they let things go. W. came in and had 9/11 which was another crisis and while we were dealing with that, the dems continued to deny that anything was wrong in hearing after hearing. The same people that did all that denying are not leaders in the new social engineering going on to get money to the right people, as long as they are not white males. Bush should have done more, but with the press slaming any attempt to not get poor people into homes, I think he let it slide as we were fighting the war on terror. He got slammed for trying to address some long term financial issues with social security.
So now they have power everywhere on the federal level and the crisis they helped to engineer and so we see a flood of every soical engineering and socialist agenda all at once. All will fail and in 2010 there will be a reversal starting to pull them in. We may be in a terrible depression by then and have unemployment in double digits. It will be time just like it was for Reagan who came into massive unemployment and double digit inflation at the same time.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Again, this is no big deal and anyone on the left that took Rush’s statement serious should be ashamed of themselves. It wasn’t that big of a deal but as political theatrics go, the WH and Rush played it perfect.

I was more than willing to give Michael Steele a chance but apologizing to a talk show host is some punk shit.

@jetmech,

You explained Rush’s statement well but you forget one thing… I don’t give a damn what Rush said. I don’t care how the WH responded. I find it odd that Liberals would get their panties in a knot over it. Who cares? But again, for entertainment purposes… I enjoyed it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Typical of the brain dead left, they advocate what they would not allow anyone else to say. The left will always accuse others of what they themselves are doing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0