Skip to comments.Republicans are Scared to Death of Obama Because He Wins by Demonizing Opponents
Posted on 01/22/2013 1:49:00 PM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: This Tom Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, and this is yesterday on the Today show. They're on there with Matt Lauer and they are celebrating. They're celebrating because they think the Republicans have given up, and they're right. Everybody's giving up. My impression is that everybody is giving up and they're waiting for events that nobody can predict to maybe change the direction that we're headed; events that nobody can predict that will stop Obama in his tracks; events that'll happen that will wake people up.
The sense I get is that there's no point in opposing because we're only gonna be hated. There's no point in pointing out where Obama's making a mistake, transforming the country in a bad way, 'cause that's only gonna make us hated and disliked; people aren't gonna like it. We don't want to be hated and disliked. We lost. That's what happens when you lose. The winners get to do whatever they want, and we'll just wait for some unknown series of events, and we'll pray that something karma related will come along and save us, bail us out. That's what I sense is where much of what you would think would be opposition to this in Washington is. First off, Andrea Mitchell.
MITCHELL: It's been so toxic that I think the president is betting that the American people -- it's clear in our polls -- the people are ready fed up with this and that it will be in the Republican Party's advantage to play somewhat toward getting something done. You saw that in Williamsburg, Virginia, with the House caucus last week when Paul Ryan steered the party and the more radical elements of the Tea Party which supported him toward some sort of compromise short term, at least on the debt ceiling.
RUSH: Yeah, let's not oppose anything. Oh, my God, just let Obama have what he wants. You know, people are fed up with us. The Republicans are running around, I think they actually think everybody hates them. Voters, not just Republican supporters, donors, everybody. So the president's betting the American people are fed up with the Republicans. The best thing the Republicans can do is just be invisible and just let Obama have his way. And, of course why wouldn't the media do this? The media has succeeded in making the Republicans think that criticizing Obama is gonna irritate independents, while Romney was winning independents in double digits in five of the eight battleground states. The reason the Republicans lost the election is because they didn't turn out their base.
Let's grab Ivan, Virginia Beach. I'm glad you called, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Oh, thanks, Rush, for having me on.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: I just wanted to point out one line that really stuck out to me in this whole speech. I'm paraphrasing, but basically Obama said, "Now is not the time to solve the question, the centuries old question of the role of government, but to solve our current problems now." And to me it's a great sleight of hand because he's kind of pushing the conservatives off to the side while at the same time ignoring the fact that the role of the government is actually the central issue, whether you're talking about the debt, gun control, gay marriage, whatever, it's the role of the federal government that that's the real issue.
RUSH: The centuries old problem over the role of government is exactly the problem. It makes total sense that Obama would want to shove it aside. Look, let's shelve the debate over whether government should be big or not so that I can go ahead and transform this country while nobody's paying attention. And let's go ahead and argue about solving the problems the way I want to solve 'em, because everybody's agreed not to oppose me. So let's just get rid of the negatives that attach to me, and the Republicans are saying, "Okay, if you don't want to talk about the negatives attached to you, we won't." So he's basically asking for a clear road, and he's being given one.
RUSH: I think, actually, that Obama believes that the role of government's already been solved. We've got Obamacare. We have the Julia commercial. I think he believes that he's now convinced a majority of Americans that the government should be the central focus of everybody's life in terms of their needs and their wants and their safety and security. You go to government for it. I think he's already succeeded at that. The role of government has been debated, voted on, and solved, and he won. And so Obama basically in his speech yesterday was calling for us to become a country of the government, by the government, and for the government. With him and his buddies in charge of it. Thanks, Ivan.
Mark in Chicago, glad you called, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call. And fascinating subject today. I love it. Rush, real quick. I mean, if we were in charge and being a conservative, I mean, my heart's desire, I think all our hearts' desire is to take out the Democrats. And I think we would do it a little differently. We would do it through policy. And, you know, Rush, I'm 54, and in my lifetime, I don't think I've ever seen -- correct me if I'm wrong -- a Republican president that had had the control Obama has had from '08 to '10. And, you know, I think at the end, the people are gonna decide which party is gonna prevail --
RUSH: Well, some might say that George W. Bush had it for a while, but of course he's a different temperament. But, you know, your first point is really important, it's really valid. If the situation were reversed, the way we would be attempting to eliminate opposition is in the arena of ideas. We would not be smearing these people. We wouldn't be running campaign ads telling lies about people, accusing them of murder and all these other things. That's not how we would be doing it. But Obama is doing it that, and he's winning doing that. He is winning telling lies about his opposition. He's triumphing big time doing so. It's an important point. I'm glad you made it, and we will be right back.
RUSH: I just played Andrea Mitchell in which she expressed satisfaction that the Republicans are scared, given up, exactly as they should. Here's Brokaw weighing in on that idea.
BROKAW: I think it's an indication. I think it's a telltale sign about where the Republicans are. Four years ago when the president was making that speech, Republicans were meeting at night --
BROKAW: -- trying to decide how they were gonna defeat him when he runs for reelection. They lost that big time. He had a very robust electoral victory and a significant popular vote victory. Now the Republicans are in disarray trying to organize their party so they have a future.
RUSH: They're not even thinking about that yet. The Republican Party is trying to stay out of Obama's crosshairs right now. People who donated to the Republican Party are trying to stay out of Obama's crosshairs right now. There are all kinds of people who think of themselves in the opposition who are trying not to be noticed by Obama right now. There is a profound amount of fear for Obama and what his government could do and might be inclined to do to people to teach them a lesson. So it's low-profile city all the way, and let's just sit back. We can't stop it anyway, so let's hope something comes along outside of anybody's control, some event or series of events that wakes people up and rights the ship. I think that's where people are right now. Not everybody, but a vast majority.
Now, one other thing here about this business of Reagan and transformational and Obama. There's a big distinction here that needs to be made. You have all of these media types marveling here at Obama. I was warning everybody, but they're all sitting there marveling how Obama's replicating and emulating Reagan, changing the trajectory of the country, transforming America, blah, blah, blah. That's not what Reagan did. Reagan mighta changed the trajectory in the sense that he reoriented people's lives to themselves and away from government.
Reagan celebrated the Constitution, the founding, the uniqueness of this country. Reagan respected our democratic system. By transformational applied to Reagan, it means that Reagan was trying to rebuild the country. Reagan was trying to save it. Reagan was attempting to reorient the country toward its founding. That's not what Obama's doing. And yet by giving Obama the imprimatur of Reagan, it's a really dangerous thing to do, because here we have the Republican Party -- well, certain commentators basically awarding Obama with Reaganism and Reagan-type characteristics. And there isn't anything similar.
Reagan did not govern in defiance of the Constitution. Reagan did not govern in defiance of the founding. Reagan was not angry and fed up. Reagan was not about grievance politics. Reagan didn't think that a bunch of people had gotten away with murder in the past and they needed to be gotten even with now. Reagan wasn't about targeting the enemy other than the Soviet Union and other communists. He wasn't about targeting the enemy and wiping them out. You will not find, in eight years of Reagan, anything like what you're reading today about eliminating the Democrats, pulverizing the Democrats, going for the throat, wiping them out. That's not what Reagan was. That's not what Reagan did.
Reagan won in the arena of ideas. Reagan won people's hearts and minds. Obama's not doing that. Obama's not winning with his ideas. Obama's not garnering support for his ideas. This is what frustrates me. Obama is winning purely and simply by lying and demonizing his opposition. Brokaw couldn't be further from the truth here in explaining Obama's victory. (imitating Brokaw) "Oh, yeah, a popular election, he won it big time, very robust electoral victory, significant popular vote."
The Republican base stayed home because they were angry at the Republican Party and at Romney, but people voted against Romney. They were not voting for Obama. This is what everybody misses. Obama had demonized Romney for a full year, and people believed it. They believed that Romney didn't care when a guy's wife died. There has never been a candidate for the White House more charitable, more giving, and more decent. Forget political ideas and concepts, just in terms of humanity, there's never been a better person run for the office than Romney. Maybe some people are close. And to have the American people end up believing that this guy hated dogs, quickly allowed people's wives to die without caring about it and had secret money stashes all over the world, not paying his taxes and so forth. I mean, it was robust, to use Brokaw's language.
It was robust the way Romney was destroyed. That's how Obama wins. And that's what Obama's gonna continue to do, and that's what the media's urging him to do, is the point. Then they come along and say that, "Well, like Reagan, he's transforming America. He's gonna try to fundamentally change the trajectory and so forth." In his dreams Obama will be as successful as Reagan. But one thing Obama couldn't do, he couldn't get close to winning the way Reagan did. He can't get close to emulating Reagan in terms of transforming the country. That's not what Reagan did.
Reagan didn't win by telling lies about his opposition. Reagan didn't win by demonizing everybody. Reagan didn't win by convincing people that the Democrats were big reprobates, you know, human debris and all that. That's all Obama's got. He can't win on the strength of his ideas, and he doesn't run on them. His inaugural address was a bunch of pap and emptiness. It was just more of the same in terms of his lofty plans for a government that was never intended to be, by virtue of the founders of this country. And to attach Reagan to that the way some of these analysts are doing is quite offensive.
"Yeah, well, he seeks fundamental change." He does. But Reagan was a defender of the Constitution, not a destroyer of it. Huge difference. And it is kind of galling. This is why I've been mentioning it, folks. Maybe I haven't been communicating this well enough. Lord knows that's possible. It's just been galling to me to watch the Democrat Party co-opt Ronald Reagan, use him to advance themselves while in the process totally misrepresenting who and what Reagan was and did. And then to have analysts sit by and marvel at it has been a little bit much, tough to take. But it is what's been happening, and continues to.
RUSH: Look, folks, here's another thing. Apparently Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, and all the rest of these media people appreciate sleazy campaigns, which is what Obama's campaign was. It was a campaign full of sleaze, and these guys are out there endorsing it and saying, "We need to up the sleaze! Yes, we need now to pulverize the Republicans. We need to strangle the Republicans. We need to take the Republicans out." They're encouraging Obama to do more of this.
Reagan won two landslides. Obama wins, what, 51% or 53%, by three points, whatever it was? Reagan never had a media in his pocket doing his bidding. Obama couldn't win without them running interference for him. I'm just telling you that it galls me a little bit to see all these Reagan comparisons and have them not be properly analyzed. In his dreams and only in his dreams is Obama Reagan, is the point. There aren't any similarities. And yet you wouldn't know that if you pay attention to the Drive-Bys.
True. But seven of my direct ancestors fought in that one and helped make the America that we used to love.
Republicans are scared to death of Obama because Obama guard dogs like Limbauh, Fx News and most other so-called conservative celebrities aren’t doing the following. They aren’t lifting a finger to help reconnect Constitution-ignorant voters with the Founding States’ division of federal and state government powers evidenced by the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I, Article V and the 10th Amendment.
Now just WHERE would an idea like that come from???
16Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in amarriage; but are appointed angels in bheaven, which angels are ministering cservants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are aangels of God forever and ever.
18And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that acovenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.
19And again, verily I say unto you, if a man amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and beverlasting covenant, and it is csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of dpromise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto themYe shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depthsthen shall it be written in the Lambs gBook of Life, that he shall commit no hmurder whereby to shed innocent iblood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be bgods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.
21Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my alaw ye cannot attain to this glory.
22For astrait is the gate, and narrow the bway that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the clives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.
23But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that awhere I am ye shall be also.
I’m sick of Rush and I’m sick of Hannity and I’m sick of Beck! The Republicans aren’t afraid of ANYTHING except the low information voter. And so should every conservative in the country be.
Romney never challenged any allegations against him and this is what McCain did also. They let the lies linger and never ever said they were LIES! Of course your enemy would win. Who would have told either of them to just let it slide? n/s
How do you feel about, say, Baha'i?
We easily have some 17% of the current population of the territory once known as the United States of America interested in revolution, or secession, or calling for a reaffirmation of the American ideals.
Offer, first, to divide the country amicibly. The counties/congressional districts that are colored in on the electoral maps as “red” areas, be allowed to separate from the pockets that are designated on these same maps as “blue” areas. The “blue” areas are given free rein to practice all the “social justice” and “fairness” they can stand, while the “red” area (which is nearly contiguous) is allowed to keep the customs and laws that have defined the ideal that is what the “United States of America” used to be. The words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution apply and are enforced, as much on the central part of the government as on every state, province, county seat and township in the republic thus formed.
There will be an adjustment period. First of all, those who do not agree with the reversion to the previous standards of civility and conduct are forthwithly sent packing off to one of the “blue” areas, and for those trapped in the “blue” areas but find that brand of “liberty” not to be their choice, would be allowed to emigrate to the “red” area. Once the resettlement is essentially complete, a frontier shall be maintained separating all parts of the “red” area from the “blue” area, and only very extenuating circumstances will be considered for those who would attempt to penetrate the other side, such as asylum, or family considerations.
This, of course, means a goodly part of the persons charged with delivering the message of what our heritage is or should be, would have to be aligned to assure that some kind of subversion is not going on in schools and universities. Those activist teachers and instructors that are interested in implementing a “new way” may enter the “blue” zones, but would not be allowed to practice that same activism in the “red” area. Those teachers and instructors that have faith in the ideals that formed America in its first two centuries of existence are invited to enter and remain in the “red” area.
If this amicible division should prove to be too burdensome for the Washington, DC, wonks, then they should be properly reminded that there are some 300 million side arms out there, and the Second Amendment has not yet been rescinded.
Demons tend to demonize.
Mitt’s campaign let him be destroyed by BO. They never once took the gloves off and had so many opportunities to do it. Obama was/is scandal ridden, corrupt and a liar. No one knows his background and he has driven the economy into the ground. Mitt should have destroyed him personally, like he did his fellow Republican candidates but he never did. Should have destroyed him and kept on no matter what the press said. It may have opened a few eyes.
17% of our current population is 6,120,000. That’s a pretty big militia.
The Mormon church twisted Christianity.
And now what?
Mitt, in spite of his elevated post in the church, sometimes seemed to care very little about widely claimed Mormon standards. Why would he ever have been copacetic with the sick charade called “gay marriage?” That’s not what Salt Lake City wants to be known as its legacy.
Oh to have been a fly on Mitt’s wall.
We can’t impeach unless we win back the Senate. Even then, the spineless Repubs would be to scared to do it.
Yup, if anyone was in a place to have mercilessly flouted Barack, Mitt was, and he just let it fall on the floor.
How do you get it through the TV media filter? If they don't like, they will not air it. It's still a TV news driven country. If it ain't on TV, it didn't happen.
If they cared about looking at both sides of a story, obama would never have won.
I think the Obama campaign was shocked that they didn’t go after him. I remember Axlegrease saying something of that nature after the fact.
democrats have ALWAYS demonized their opponents.
The sad truth is... everything that gets done (or not done) in Washington is EXACTLY what both sides want to happen. It's just convenient to let to happen and then blame it on the other guy.
Its as simple as this—Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, Liberals think conservatives are bad people.
All campaigns need to be run with that in mind. The libs and the media will always portray the GOP as mean while the GOP tries to sell ideas.
Well we are well and truly screwed then. I wouldn’t care anout demonization if they were not cowards and deserving of even consertive scorn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.