Skip to comments.Mary Matalin on Rush today - and is she off base? (Stunned)
Posted on 04/23/2012 9:30:05 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
FREEPER COMMENTS REQUESTED: Is it just me, or is Mary Matalin way off base today with her entire theme for the show (guest hosting for Rush). Now I normally like her work tremendously, but her idea that we should search for "virtue" in government and for "virtuous people" to be in government seems extremely naive.
The only virtue in government is its limit. We will never get a government full of virtuous people. By definition, government is power and virtuous people are not drawn to that. Our Founders knew that. This is why they insisted on LIMITED government. Wake up Mary!
Maybe I should rephrase my point. It seems to be regarded as false by those who say nothing to refute it. Adding small government mention to it is superfluous. Remember that stuff about governs least, about enumerated powers and such?
Okay, I think I know how to word it now: The Founders designed a government that would work well when populated by virtuous men. Oh, that's exactly the same. It is the same because it is correct and complete.
None of us who emphasized virtue were denying small government. You see virtuous men do not violate the oaths of office, step on the Constitution or act for self-gain against the good of the country. We are where we are because unvirtuous men have at too many times led an unvirtuous populous.
“When I first tuned in I thought it was a soundbite of Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg.”
When I first listened, I knew she reminded me of someone and aha: she reminds me of Ruth Buzzard Ginsberg!
“Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like rush has been taking more and more time off from the show.”
Maybe happy marriage and enjoying the golf, the cigar, etc.
Still, I miss him a lot lately, too.
I will type slowly so that you can follow along, how’s that?
My comments were on the commentary of the substitute host of today’s Rush Limbaugh Show, and how I thought they were naive and off base to stress the notion of virtue the way she was stressing it. Therefore, my comments are totally dependent on what was said on that show to be understood.
You tried to separate my comments from the radio show, and thus you reached a jack leg idiotic conclusion about how I feel on the issue, because you had no context. Context is important.
Oops. I think I just typed too fast for you to understand. Sorry.
You are so lost as to the point, not to mention you misunderstand an important nuance of the Founders as well. I don’t have the time or patience to help you tonight.
Best of luck to you in the future, and as a hint, I would suggest you look at the nation through the eyes of the governed, and not those who govern, for a proper perspective. The only morality in government is limit, period. Power corrupts, period. Fallen nature and all of that.
I sat up and listened intently when Mary started the show with virtue as the topic. It is something I would expect to hear on Mark Levins show, not Rushs. I was only able to listen to the first few minutes, but gathered the gist.
As luck would have it, Ive been reading Gordon S. Woods 1969 classic, Creation of the American Republic. The quotes below are his. He isnt alone of course. The Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers . . . all touched on the value of virtue.
The very greatness of republicanism, its utter dependence on the people, was simultaneously its source of weakness. In a republic, each man must somehow be persuaded to submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the whole. This was termed public virtue. A republic was such a delicate polity precisely because it demanded an extraordinary moral character in the people. Every state in which the people participated needed a degree of virtue; but a republic which rested solely on the people absolutely required it.
Without some portion of this generous principle, anarchy and confusion would immediately ensue, the jarring interests of individuals, regarding themselves only, and indifferent to the welfare of others . . . would end in ruin and subversion of the State.
In less eloquent terms, a people that sends enough Sheila Jackson-Lees to Congress cannot expect to keep a government designed by the likes of James Madison and Benjamin Franklin.
The founding fathers said the only way that government would properly serve the people would be if it were run by moral people. Sounds right to me. More conservatives should choose government service and do their best to limit its scope. In Wisconsin, our state treasurer ran on the platform of trying to eliminate the job if he got elected.
Really no need. Your comments were extremely simplistic and easy to understand.
Unfortunately, they are expressed poorly which is why they are incorrect and why many rightly are taking issue with them.
I’m betting Rush placed Matalin as the guest host to clearly demonstrate the lameness of liberal republicans and what we can look forward to with mittens as the nominee. Pretty ingenious on his part.
He did win. I believe the position can only be eliminated by the legislature. Republicans have a slim lead in the Senate and Assembly but some screwy rule says that at least 19 senators, rather than a simple majority, have to agree before a bill becomes law. And we have 16 or 17 republican senators. But the treasurer still appears to be adamant that his post should be eliminated because his duties can be parceled out to other departments.
Well, I have the insight to know Glenn is a hypocrite and a huckster, at least.
Chris, you go back and search my post history and tell me how many times Ive mentioned Beck on non-Beck threads, and then get back to me. Then you might realize how abysmally stupid you sound. Ive never seen anyone on FR follow another Freeper to threads like you do, whining about their posting habits. I don’t know what’s wrong with you, to be honest.
Ill tell you this once. Ill post what I like, and if you dont like it, dont read it.I couldn’t care less what you post about, and I invite you to develop the same healthy attitude about me. Thats one of the beauties of FRthere are so many different topics to talk about. And no ankle-biter with a fan complex is going to influence my choices.
Now you have a nice evening.
“Ive written in American Thinker several times about a virtual congress, keeping them in their districts. It is the future of our nation, if we are to have one.
Keep spreading the word.”
Will do, sir!
Someone who married a woman named '...Katherine'?
Just playing with you, bramps! I have a similar name and people call me that name - no nicknames. I did not ask them to go by any nickname and they just seemed to think my full name was ok.
Of course, they call me some other names when I get my "conservative" dander up!
Now the admins have to delete some posts and she may get 50 posts.”
I'm not an avid fan, but have been a fan, nonetheless.
Man, I would have thought better of her.
That's basically all I heard her say and until I found out it was her. Then I turned it off. I don't trust her, being married to Carvel.
I hate to quibble, but the Founders said our government would only work FOR a moral people. Their emphasis, as yours, should be on us and not on those elected. We can only keep them in check with limits.
But again, you mistake what the Founders were saying.
No, few are, but they won’t shut the hell up and go away.
I listened to about 5 minutes of incoherence and switched to sports talk. Premature senility?
Doesn’t that also mean that only moral people should be in office, so as to prevent those abuses that oppress the people? I interpret what Franklin and Adams say as applying to those in political power as well.
I don't think I missed anything. I chose the quotes I did because I think the founders understood that virtue must reside in all the people, including those who are elected to and serve in government. I know and appreciate Lord Acton's warning, but I don't think it is the topic under consideration here.
Mark Steyn and Walter Williams are two of my favorite subs for Rush.
Mary was okay, but it just underscore the dearth of available talent to play guest host. Most that would do a good job already have a gig.
Maybe we could find us a virtuous dictator.........
Agreed. Carvile is more true to his cause.
Didn't it happen occasionally in the "golden age" of Hollywood that a major studio went into a snit about a star, and refused to put him (or her) in a movie and refused to release him from the contract or allow him to work for another studio?
The thing is I don't believe Rush owns a single radio station; he broadcasts through contracts with station owners. Bain and Thomas H. Lee (also Mormon run) took Clear Channel private in 2006. And as I said, Rush's syndicator (which I take to function something like an agent, placing the show, dealing with contracts, etc.) is also owned by Bain. I don't know how long Rush has been with this syndicator (Premiere) or the specific contract provisions, but we all know the courts see plenty of contract disputes, in spite of all the lawyer hours that go into drawing up multi-million dollar contracts, in which one party insists on construing a contract provision in a way utterly unforeseen by the other party.
I do think there has to be a reason why Rush saw early on that Mitt was the Dems' hoped for Pubbie. And then dropped that theme right down the memory hole apparently.
Boston may be merely an isolated instance, but a couple of years ago Rush, who for years broadcast here on an Entercom station, was moved to a new Boston Clear Channel station.
We also know Mitt has been running for the past 6 years, quite methodically getting all his ducks in a row.
Rush has a level of star power that puts him on equal footing with Clear Channel. He can't be pushed around by them. You see the same thing with entertainers who've risen to superstar status. They're powerful enough to have a 'seat at the table', and can even call the shots on major projects.
They need him a lot more than he needs them. He could even walk away if he wanted, and build a new network. His audience, the advertisers, and the investment dollars would follow him.
I don't think anyone's pressuring him one way or the other about his editorial content.
In any case, his "star power" is pretty much limited to politically interested conservatives -- and not all of them.
Rush is the number one talk show host in America, and has been for what - twenty or more years now? He's the leader of an entire industry, and that's a fact. It translates into dollars. Lots of them. It's the same sort of box office power that certain superstar entertainers have.
People at that level in the entertainment and media fields have mega clout in their industries, and no one pushes them around. They say what they want, and do what they want, because they can bring the money. No one's pulling Rush's strings.
Yes, we did "get it."
The program was not the usual "Rush," but the subject of "virtue" as an attribute for leaders, no matter who introduces it, is one that needs discussion.
The poster's focus on "limiting" government is well taken and absolutely correct.
The Founders's left a written Constitution which, if implemented by men who respected their oath and possessed undying fidelity to the Constitution and its underlying principles, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and their written records, would accomplish the Preamble's stated purposes.
Under their formula, elected leaders would come from among "the People," and would return to live among "the People." As a result, all the wonderful quotations provided on this thread about the necessity for "virtue" among "the People" necessarily applies to those elected to leadership.
The Founders understood the human tendency to abuse power, but they provided a "parchment barrier" to limit delegated power. Even so, they warned that more was needed--election of leaders whose lives exhibited a certain "virtue" which would honor and respect limitations on their power.
Further, we have living proof that all the "limits" provided by the Constitution have not stopped the current president from resisting and bypassing those limits, even declaring that "we can't wait" long enough to do things we want to do in order to abide by the strict provisions of the Constitution.
Clearly, this president's life history was not perused enough by most citizens to provide full disclosure to them that they were voting for an individual whose inner motivations and overt actions clearly indicated a strong sense of fidelity to and appreciation for the Founders' Constitution's protections for their individual liberty, as well as a strict limit on the Executive Branch's power.
Thanks, again, for your contribution to this thread. There are no "superior" or inferior contributors. Over the years, FR has been a place where all opinions were respected and valued.
Hopefully, all of us are just citizens who are seeking, rediscovering and sharing the ideas underlying our documents of freedom as a means to preserving them for future generations.