WH Alinsky tactics on conservatives (via Rush) to backfire?


Everyone who happens to turn on news for five minutes knows of the philosophical public battles between Obama, the Democrats and conservatives, targeting radio host, Rush Limbaugh. Today, Jonathan Martin of Politico introduces us to the architects and players in the Alinsky “target and isolate” propaganda campaign via his article, Rush Job: Inside Dem’s Limbaugh plan.

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.


The seeds were planted in October after Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling company run by Carville and Greenberg, included Limbaugh’s name in a survey and found that many Americans just don’t like him.

“His positives for voters under 40 was 11 percent,” Carville recalled with a degree of amazement, alluding to a question about whether voters had a positive or negative view of the talk show host.

Paul Begala, a close friend of Carville, Greenberg and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, said they found Limbaugh’s overall ratings were even lower than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s controversial former pastor, and William Ayers, the domestic terrorist and Chicago resident who Republicans sought to tie to Obama during the campaign.

Then came what Begala called “the tripwire.”

“I hope he fails,” Limbaugh said of Obama on his show four days before the president was sworn in. It was a time when Obama’s approval ratings were soaring, but more than that, polls showed even people who didn’t vote for him badly wanted him to succeed, coming to office at a time of economic meltdown.

Let’s repeat that, shall we? This campaign on the GOP (and in effect, any opposition to Obama), per Martin, started last fall and continues with a task force today that emanates from the White House itself.

The progressive/liberals had to adjust their tactics as they realized “that trying to drive a wedge between congressional Republicans and Limbaugh was unlikely to work, and their better move was to paint the GOP as beholden to the talk show host.”

Conversations and email exchanges began taking place in and out of the White House not only between the old pals from the Clinton era but also including White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Woodhouse.

The White House needed no more convincing after Limbaugh’s hour-plus performance Saturday, celebrated on the right and mocked on the left, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he re-stated his hope Obama fails.

“He kicked this into full-gear at CPAC by reiterating it,” said a senior White House official of Limbaugh.

By Sunday morning, Emanuel elevated the strategy by bringing up the conservative talker, unprompted, on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and calling him the “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.”

The liberal/progressive propaganda machine is beside themselves with joy that even the RNC Chair, Michael Steele, managed to insert himself in the fray by labeling Rush as an entertainer (which he already admits) who is “incendiary” and espouses some “ugly” talking points. They got even more joy watching Steele furiously backpeddle on his public comments.

Standing apart from the specifics, and watching these events unfold, there are two thoughts I have on all this political backroom strategy of destruction.

First, it truly is beyond all comprehension and acceptability to have the WH use the bully pulpit to quash dissenting voices by insinuating dark falsehoods about a political philosophy they do not share. And it is even more disconcerting that the bully pulpit wasn’t content to dissect Joe the Plumber, but now again goes after another private citizen exercising his first amendment rights – and in keeping with his chosen career.

The second thought I have is… just who is playing whom here? Obviously the WH and their citizen attack force believe they have the upper hand in their strategy.

But do they really? Have they considered the repercussions of a wild backfire? I think not. Let me explain.

This campaign is to get the GOP Congress and public opinion behind Obama’s “remaking of America. And to do this, they need to paint any other philosophy as un-American, and force willing abandonment of the 1st Amendment right – i.e. silencing Rush and their genuine targets, “nae” GOP votes in Congress – by using a herd mentality. This assumes, of course, that conservative voices feel they need to be in a herd. Absurd because that, in itself, is anti-conservative.

The WH and the Democrats want nothing more than a homogenous nation of voices in harmony – all applauding their direction to have the government assume more control over our private lives with increased welfare spending, government curriculum in public schools from pre-school thru higher education, and increased government control in the private sector with their bailouts.

Then again, for this campaign to silence dissent to succeed, Obama’s “remaking of America” in his vision needs to yield successful results. For him, personally, just as long as he holds office. But for Congressional members – who have demonstrated they pretty much *never* leave to get a private sector job – the long term success, or failure, can be the instrument of their demise.

Certainly if Obama’s “remaking” goes thru, they can claim “success” of restructuring America into a European model. Obviously, too many Democrats find this inviting.

But the Democrats are allowing Obama and handlers to put all their political poker chips on a huge gamble of a Euro-America socialist experiment being the choice of the nation’s denizens. The nation may be blinded by Obama’s “inspirational persona” and doesn’t realize Euro-socialist as the goal. But the question is, once they see the results of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid plan, will they be as enthralled with this new America that Obama has “remade”?

I personally don’t think so. Those wishing to emigrate to the US still far outnumber those that wish to repatriate themselves in a Euro-socialist country. There’s a good reason for this with our opportunities and appeal. Yet that inviting appeal is under assault by the new direction under this President.

For the Republicans, this Alinsky assault may be a timely godsend. The so called GOP “moderates”… or Democrat-lites… have been battling the party fiscal conservatives for control after the 2006 and 2008 election losses. Now progressive/liberals are demanding these “moderate” Republicans eat their own. But to do so, the pols know they risk a very large conservative constituency.

This will prove difficult as Rush espouses the ideological platform of the GOP… smaller government, less intrusion into our lives and the business sector, and fiscal responsibility. They cannot openly diss Rush without dissing the heart of the party’s platform.

And this is exactly the goal of the WH and the Democrats… to force the elected GOP Congress to publicly renounce conservatism.

Instead, what may actually result is a furious party, uniting to turn on the Alinsky tactics being used in the attempt to destroy them and the very principles the party [used to] stand on.

There is yet another benefit. It is true Republicans have abandoned this platform for too long. And for this… they have paid the price. They’ve spent with the same abandon that Democrats have when in power. And frankly, they’ve lost the faith of many of their base for doing so.

This public battle brings the conservative philosophy of the Republican Party to the forefront. The Democrats scoff and demonize the conservative platform, while the Democrat-lites with the R behind their name sheepishly remain in defensive mode.

What becomes very obvious is that the fiscal conservatives still wield influence in the party, witnessed by the various “I didn’t really mean it” style comments coming from those GOPers held up by the Dems as Rush bashing…. As if to say “see? Even Republicans don’t like his philosophy”.

Just as the Democrats mischaracterized McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” statement, they are furiously rewriting Rush’s “I want Obama to fail” statement… portraying it as a wish for the nation’s failure. Since most of us know this is about stopping Obama’s “remaking of America” into a Euro-socialist structure, what matters most is if enough people in the nation wake up to the spending frenzy and question the wisdom of this path. Rush, himself, can withstand any mud and liberal excrement thrown his way.

And as to that goal, using Rush to demonize fiscal conservatism doesn’t appear to be working.

Reid had a brief victory when Congress voted to flush McCain’s attempt to strip the omnibus from 8000 earmarks via amendment down the toilet. But all is not well in Progressive Disneyland on the spending bill.

Obama now faces a mutiny on his own – a gang of 15 “moderate” Democrats, headed up by Sen. Evan Bahy (D-IN) that are rebelling against the Omnibus spending.

Moderate and conservative Democrats in the Senate are starting to choke over the massive spending and tax increases in President Barack Obama’s budget plans and have begun plotting to increase their influence over the agenda of a president who is turning out to be much more liberal than they are.

A group of 14 Senate Democrats and one independent huddled behind closed doors on Tuesday, discussing how centrists in that chamber can assert more leverage on the major policy debates that will dominate this Congress.

Afterward, some in attendance made plain that they are getting jitters over the cost and expansive reach of Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget proposal.

Asked when he’d reach his breaking point, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, said: “Right now. I’m concerned about the amount that’s being offered in [Obama’s] budget.”

Another attendee, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.), said she expected the newly formed caucus to shape Obama’s budget proposal as it moves through Congress.

“We want to give the president a chance, but our concern is going to be on the budget, looking forward,” Landrieu said. She added that she agrees with Obama that there needs to be “fundamental change” in fiscal policy, but she said “we do have to keep our eye on the long term, on intermediate and long-term fiscal responsibility.”

Are they next on the list to be demonized for listening to Rush’s conservative message about wasteful spending and big government? Because, like Rush and many conservatives fighting this “remaking of America”, apparently, some of the Democrat ranks are not as sure about this spending spree curing the nation’s economic ills.

The WH / Rahm’bo propaganda machine is likely to continue their attempt to silence opposition, using Rush as their divide and conquer weapon and playing on Obama’s popularity while the numbers, tho dropping, remain high. This may prove politically inconvenient when they end up having to silence some in their own party as well.

Instead – like Obama/Pelosi/Reid’s progressive overreach – what these Alinsky tactics may accomplish instead is fueling the fiscal spending movement. Backfiring on the WH as they find many of their own resisting the gamble on the future.

The WH assault task force may think they are orchestrating a coup. But Rush and many genuine conservatives are not blind to their attempts. Conservative benefits of the WH overtly attacking opposing philosophy are many. So it makes one go “hummm… just who is playing whom”?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Great insight. I have written on this myself. I am very surprised that this breakup in the Democratic Party and unification of the Conservative base happened so fast. It was inevitable with such a radical President, but I thought Obama would be careful and slowly introduce his radical ideas. Well, I was definitely wrong. Obama with true narcissistic behavior has just forced these policies through.

All of this is backfiring, not only with Conservatives uniting, but, surprisingly, the Democrats are now splitting from Obama. Liberal columnists are jumping ship too. This is all good for the nation. If the moderate Democrats can generate some political leverage, they along with Republicans could slow some these radical policies or stop them all together.


Obama will let the Dems fight among themselves in shaping the actual budget which gets passed. There won’t be radical (i.e. true socialistic) bills (or appropriations) passed, precisely because of the need for more conservative votes in the Senate (i.e. the GOP gang of three plus bluish-dog Democrats like Nelson and Landrieu). Don’t look for Obama to waste political capital on trying to block these attempts to moderate the legislative agenda. Obama wants to hold onto 60% of the electorate, more than he wants “perfect” bills on his desk.

The Dems aren’t using Limbaugh to marginalize conservative economics, they are using Limbaugh to discredit GOP opposition to their legislative agenda. It’s working. Because prominent GOP politicians fear getting on the wrong side of Limbaugh, more than they fear losing face with the moderate segment of the electorate. Good way to beat off primary challenges in your own party. Bad way to win state-wide elections and very bad way to get the nation to rebel against the Democratic legislative agenda.

You guys keep underestimating Obama. You declare victory every other day — look at all those mis-steps and “socialist” actions he’s taking. Look at that 4% dip in his popularity rankings (this was before his ersatz state of the union speech). The nation is starting to catch on. Well, no, not exactly. Not even close. Obama is Goliath; the Conservative movement needs to find a David. Limbaugh is no David.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA


This is great.

BO didn’t have a clue what he was getting himself into.

As Ed Driscoll over at PajamasMedia said: Rush has made Obama an offer he cannot accept.

The White House has now labeled their strategy “counterproductive”.

Roll the tape:

Aye declares victory.


Sharp analysis and commentary! One thing I hope conservatives understand is that political intimidation of the media from the Executive Branch is wading into first amendment violations. I don’t care for Rush, but this whole attack on him scares the bejeezus out of me.


No, Larry.

I haven’t declared victory yet.

We’ll see if BO has the stones to debate the private citizen he has chosen to target.

Then we’ll see who is declared the victor.

Brilliant Mata, stealth job of tying it all together, I’m amazed, but shouldn’t be, it’s what you do.

Common, Mata. He proposed a budget which increases Federal sector of the economy by a whopping 2%. He’s restoring the tax levels to the way they were in the Clinton years. He’s proposing the same sort of tax on carbon based energy similar (in taxation impact) to that which John Anderson (a Republican who ran a credible campaign for President) proposed in 1980.

With regard to your “which part of my post is beyond your reading ability?” –> Here’s what you wrote:

And as to that goal, using Rush to demonize fiscal conservatism doesn’t appear to be working.

Here’s what I wrote, in response to the above:

The Dems aren’t using Limbaugh to marginalize conservative economics, they are using Limbaugh to discredit GOP opposition to their legislative agenda.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

He (Obama) IS governing from the center — the center is not, however, the center of the conservative movement; it’s the center of the electorate. The center of the electorate approves of a restoration of the Clinton – era tax structure. The center of the electorate approves of infrastructure improvement, education improvement, health care improvement. The center of the electorate approves of the Democratic agenda and does not approve of Republican opposition to the agenda. The center of the electorate approves of the closing of Gitmo. etc. etc. etc.

With respect to my “credibility;” I stand by everything I’ve ever written here, save for occasional points where I’ve acknowledged that I had something wrong, when it was pointed out to me — unlike, for example, Mike, who was 100% wrong in castigating me for stating that atmospheric CO2 has increased markedly, and who has never acknowledged his error, nor apologized for the castigation, while I’ve apologized to him, for mistakenly identifying him as the author of something written by Aye. If you can find an example of where I’ve been in error, concerning any of my writings here, I’ll consider and concede my error(s), if there are any. But, until then, I stand by everything I’ve written, and I’ll let others be the judge of my credibility.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Interesting, Allahpundit doesn’t want to acknowledge that the White House’s attack is out-of-bounds constitutionally. I have to disagree with him this time around (even though him and Ed are usually dead-on).

Looks like we won’t be worrying about the three Republican “centrists” voting with the Dems this time. If Obama was governing from the center, he would have the support of the following:

Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who is also part of the moderate Democratic group, agreed with that sentiment. But she added that she hadn’t “scrubbed” Obama’s proposed budget yet and that “we need to be careful not to use the economic crisis to get into bad habits.”

Similarly, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) said he wants to ensure that new spending in Obama’s budget remains funded for only one year. “If it’s coming and staying, then I have a problem,” Begich said just before he headed off to the meeting with the moderate Democrats.

Other Democrats in that group include Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia, Bill Nelson of Florida, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, and Blanche L. Lincoln of Arkansas, as well as Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.).

The other three “centrist” members include Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.

Larry, why do you stop Obama’s spending and governing at the budget alone?

Can you be more specific? I’m not sure to what it is that you are referring.



If you can find an example of where I’ve been in error, concerning any of my writings here, I’ll consider and concede my error(s), if there are any. But, until then, I stand by everything I’ve written, and I’ll let others be the judge of my credibility.

Well, I’m not Mata, nor do I speak for her, however here’s my contribution to this line of thinking.

You have been proven wrong.









Those are just for starters.

I’m quite sure that there are others.


I have carefully considered all of your “Here’s” (cases where you allege that I was incorrect in my assertions). I continue to stand by all of my assertions.

Here # 1:

Your linked chart of “budget deficit” to GDP ratio is both misleading and incomplete. What’s important is not “budget surplus/deficit” but actual accumulated debt, as a function of GDP. There is, as you know, so-called “off budget” spending, supplemental appropriations, etc. Also, the Bush years went way below the “pessimistic scenario” line.

The following graphs are much more informative:




The remainder of the “Here’s” pertain to the definition of socialism. Here is the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of the term:


1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2: a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Note that the first two definitions (which is the way most people think of “socialism”) do not in any way apply to any of Obama’s policies. The third is a very extreme definition, which the vast majority of the electorate doesn’t subscribe to. Under the third definition, any form of a social safety net, as well as most tax deductions, would be considered “socialism.” Aye is latching onto only this last definition in his attempt to (1) prove me “wrong” and (2) prove that Obama is promoting “socialist” policies. But this is just a relatively sophomoric attempt at a semantic “gotcha” game.

Here # 2:

I deny that I was incorrect. Obama’s proposals do not constitute socialism A progressive tax is not socialism. Spending on infrastructure, eduction, green energy, etc. are not socialism.

Here # 3:

I deny that I was incorrect. Obama is not going to “nationalize” health care. His health care plan is very similar to that signed into law by CPAC “winner” Mitt Romney, when the latter was governor of Massachussetts. So you think that Mitt Romney is a socialist, I presume.

Here # 4:

Comments above. A progressive tax system is not “socialism.” Obama’s health care plan is not “nationalization.”

Here #5:

Adam Smith did indeed state that the wealthy should pay higher taxes and he is, indeed, cited as the father of the progressive income tax.

From Wikipedia:

Note, reference # 15, below is:

^ Stein, Herbert (1994, April 6). “Board of Contributors: Remembering Adam Smith.” Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. PAGE A14. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from Wall Street Journal database. (Document ID: 28143064).

>>Some economists[15] trace the origin of modern progressive taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[16]

Here # 6:

A progressive tax is not “socialism,” and by allowing taxes to rise to those in the Clinton era (where taxes were vastly lower than during the Nixon and Eisenhower years) is certainly not “socialism.” With regard to “wealth distribution,” this is simply reducing taxes for middle income Americans, raising taxes for high income Americans. Pre-Ronald Reagan, the top 1% of Americans owned 9% of the wealth. Post-George W Bush, the top 1% of Americans owned 22% of the wealth. All those tax cuts (Reagan and Bush) were paid for with borrowed money. So we borrowed money to make wealthy Americans more wealthy, while middle income Americans did not share in this increased high-end prosperity. The center of the American electorate (who are not “socialists”) view this as profoundly unfair and in need of the type of correction discussed above by Adam Smith.

Here # 7:

This is just more semantics. You like a certain definition of “socialism,” so you try and show how certain Obama policies fit the definition. I use the much more conventionally accepted definitions (see above). And the center of the American electorate agrees with me that Obama’s policies do not constitute “socialism.”

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

My response to Aye’s # 16 went to spam.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Mata Musing: consider yourself bailed out, Larry…

They made another basic error. The observed Rush’s high negatives among the young. They didn’t ask why. Why is simple. Almost nobody in that age group has ever hear him. To hear him is to learn that the cartoon that the media paints of him is wrong. This controversy will simply cause a lot of people who’ve never hear Rush to listen to him.

That’s going to backfire on the Wyle E. Coyotes in the White House big time.


I continue to stand by all of my assertions.

But of course.

That’s why you have no credibility here Larry.

You claim that if you’re proven wrong, you’ll admit it. Then, when you’re proven wrong, you don’t keep your word.

Yes, the readers here are all judging your credibility.

You’re coming up lacking.

Mata # 17:

I won’t argue with you.

Obama is trying to achieve a whole lot of things at once:

1. Get us out of the biggest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression.
2. Jump start the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy
3. Improve the dismal performance of American students, relative to those in the nations against which we compete.
4. Rebuild infrastructure.
5. Fix a severely broken health care system.
6. Cure cancer (can’t blame him for this; Nixon tried it, also, and actually deserves enormous credit for the tremendous progress in basic science which has been made; Obama wants to accelerate the transfer of this progress into improved clinical outcomes).
7. Fix Social Security and Medicare.

Now, this is clearly a “liberal” agenda, but it’s hardly a “socialist” agenda. Of course, conservatives are going to be up in arms against it. Good for you. Fight the good fight, but, in order to win, you’ll have to convince the center of the electorate, who are squarely with Obama, to date, and squarely against GOP efforts to get in Obama’s way. Just preaching to the same old Cheney-loving crowd won’t get you anywhere. Nor will wild and dark references to “Marxism.”

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Wow! Obama is trying to do all that? It should be a no brainer for a messiah right?


Larry, he’s not trying to do all that. He only has one goal in mind: buying a socialist majority with the tax dollars of people who work harded for the money. He’s going to confiscate that money and dole it out to his friends and liberal special interests to cement their support to enable him to remain in power.

His one and only goal is political power to enact a socialist agenda.

If he ends up solving a problem, fine. But if he doesn’t who cares?

Are you going to dump him in 2012 if he fails to achieve those goals?

Good question, Mike.

I voted for him for two main reasons:

First, I thought that, with McCain, there’d be a greater chance of a nuclear bomb being detonated in Long Beach Harbor (my number one issue).

Second, I thought that, with McCain, my kids would end up with more of our debt to repay.

A distant third was that I think there’s a 50/50 chance that McCain would have a serious health issue before Jan. 2013, and I didn’t consider Sarah Palin to be at all qualified to be President (personal opinion, with which I know you strenuously disagree).

Now, I don’t agree with the whole approach to this crisis. As I keep saying, I’d have given no bailouts, no tax cuts, no omnibus stimulus. I’d have endured a deep recession, built the economy on a firm, government pay as you go basis (meaning I’d raise taxes, as the economy recovered, to balance the budget), and just let the economy heal on its own. Thereafter, I’d have addressed all the various issues, from infrastructure to green energy to education to cancer research to social security on an individual basis.

I do consider Obama’s/Summers’/Geithner’s/Volcker’s plan to be audacious. Basically, they’ve declared the economic equivalent of a World War and are pulling out all stops to truly “change” the USA. Now we all at least know that he wasn’t kidding when he said “change.”

Who would I have voted for, had I known that all this was going to happen? I’ll think about that one for another day (late for dinner now) and let you know.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

reply to Mike’s # 25 went to spam.
(belay the above — just appeared magically)

Mata Musing: “timing” is everything, Larry. I will claim credit for the “appeared magically”. Just happened to be ships, passing in the cyber night at the proper time

Larry: You’re a sucker for empty slogans and unfulfilled promises. Of course you’d vote for your socialist overlord.


I think all this discussion of socialist vs free market is interesting but misses the point. We have over the last 80 years give or take, with both Republican and Democratic administrations, built a huge government where many of society’s basic functions have been shoved off to government. The vast majority of government workers are school teachers, fire fighters, policemen, or military. I don’t hear conservatives argue when the military spends 600 plus billion per year with another 40 plus billion spent on intelligence, or 20 plus billion spent on maintaining our strategic nuclear missle program. I don’t hear that the direct recipants (i.e. the defense contractor industry) of that 700 billion is a socialist program. So are school teachers, policemen etc. socialists and many of the other government basic service providers socialists? On another point, I don’t hear conservatives railing against subsidies to industries that often make billions in profits ( oil, sugar etc.) The free market has never been really free – who helped the funding to build the railways, telephone lines, dams, highways etc. etc. etc. The free market has always needed government and governmet has , at least in the US needed the free market, each had and has functions that each can perform more effficently than the other.The larger point is that both Repubican and Democratic groups have beneifted from the, often ( probably too often), big expenditures, of government (remenber that 40% of the earmarks in this weeks budget bill – last years proposal came from Repubicans). So with that said, are some Conservative Congressmen really closet “socialists”? 63% per cent of Americans think Obama is doing OK and the new administration’s policy proposals a far cry from socialism.

Re: #11. The problem the WH house now has is that Rush has moved the goalposts on them. Further, the WH thought they could channel the anger and dismay of the average Joe AT Rush. Major miscalculation on the Dems’ part. Rush’s fury matches those who’ve just lost jobs, homes, etc. The Dems just sound elitist, snobbish and hobbish. That’s the LAST way to sound in public on the air before the cameras of a watchful public.

I’m calmly waiting for the day when American Marxists learn that it was none other than Saul Alinsky who learned all he ever knew at the feet of the Keystone Cops. He who laughs last, always laffs best! 🙂 Of course, the Marxists will deny it. They must. Their very psychologic survival depends upon their belief that Saul Alinsky was *really* one of them.