I don't profess to know what kind of a job Rick Wagoner did as GM CEO, as compared to what someone else could have done. He had presided as CEO for nearly 9 years, during which time, according to the Wall Street Journal numbers, GM's stock price fell from $70 to around $3. Yeah, that's bad. And that is only one sign of the devastation this company has encountered.
But at one point does the state of affairs reach such a hopeless point that government must dictate which CEOs go or stay? My answer is "Never." This is what was so gut-wrenching about the whole saga: Wagoner was ordered by an American President to step down from the helm of a legendary company...or else. When have we seen this sad day in American history? Surely, this is yet another tipping point in a series of way too many in the last 60 days.
Even the reliably constant Obama policy advocate, liberal Democrat Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, publicly disagreed with this particular decision, referring to Wagoner as a "sacrificial lamb." And the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson has added his voice to that chorus, as well.
But now, the President heads overseas to universal European hurrahs. And so quickly, the bulk of the country will once again be distracted.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Tim Geithner on the Sunday shows
Yesterday, the Secretary of the Treasury, whom I shall not stoop to dubbing Tim "the Tax Cheat" Geithner, made his inaugural appearance on both "This Week" and "Meet the Press." I ought to watch both interviews, but I have not yet been able to bring myself to devote the collective hour to do so. (I haven't erased them from my DVR yet, though, so there is still hope.)
I wonder how many feel as I do. I do not trust this man, even though he has now been on the job for over 2 months. And at its root, my lack of trust is not because of his lousy budget. It is because of his failure to pay his own personal taxes until forced to do so because of pending confirmation hearings for the job of, among other things, overseeing the IRS. (And yes, I refuse to name call over this issue.) Not that there isn't anything wrong with a budget that essentially is all about spend, spend, spend and when that fails, bathe the nation in red ink.
George Stephanopolous, hardly a bastion of conservatism, seemed to find it just about as newsworthy that uber-liberal, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman (see, I can name call on occasion) was opposed to the budget as that Tim Geithner was there. I could tell as I fast forwarded to the interview to the roundtable discussion segment that he had asked Geithner about Krugman's comments (among other things, Krugman compared the budget to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic). Stephanopolous also included Krugman in the roundtable this week, where Krugman predicted at least 600,000 more jobs lost and that at best, things will just get worse more slowly. With friends like that, you could say that the White House desperately needs MSNBC.
Speaking of the "This Week" roundtable, I fast forward through the Stephanopolous interview(s) at the top about half the time to get to the roundtable segment. "This Week" is always my favorite roundtable because of the presence of the incomparable George Will, but Stephanopolous is a worse interviewer than either David Gregory or Bob Schieffer and can't hold a candle to Chris Wallace. Wallace is one of the best interviewers on TV right now and just about the only one willing to be an equal opportunity griller in the mold of Tim Russert, whom I still miss terribly. And the roundtable on Fox News Sunday is always top-notch (Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams), so that makes FNS the all-around best show. So you got my Sunday show opinion along with my thoughts on the Treasury Secretary. Is there a better way to start off your week?
I wonder how many feel as I do. I do not trust this man, even though he has now been on the job for over 2 months. And at its root, my lack of trust is not because of his lousy budget. It is because of his failure to pay his own personal taxes until forced to do so because of pending confirmation hearings for the job of, among other things, overseeing the IRS. (And yes, I refuse to name call over this issue.) Not that there isn't anything wrong with a budget that essentially is all about spend, spend, spend and when that fails, bathe the nation in red ink.
George Stephanopolous, hardly a bastion of conservatism, seemed to find it just about as newsworthy that uber-liberal, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman (see, I can name call on occasion) was opposed to the budget as that Tim Geithner was there. I could tell as I fast forwarded to the interview to the roundtable discussion segment that he had asked Geithner about Krugman's comments (among other things, Krugman compared the budget to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic). Stephanopolous also included Krugman in the roundtable this week, where Krugman predicted at least 600,000 more jobs lost and that at best, things will just get worse more slowly. With friends like that, you could say that the White House desperately needs MSNBC.
Speaking of the "This Week" roundtable, I fast forward through the Stephanopolous interview(s) at the top about half the time to get to the roundtable segment. "This Week" is always my favorite roundtable because of the presence of the incomparable George Will, but Stephanopolous is a worse interviewer than either David Gregory or Bob Schieffer and can't hold a candle to Chris Wallace. Wallace is one of the best interviewers on TV right now and just about the only one willing to be an equal opportunity griller in the mold of Tim Russert, whom I still miss terribly. And the roundtable on Fox News Sunday is always top-notch (Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams), so that makes FNS the all-around best show. So you got my Sunday show opinion along with my thoughts on the Treasury Secretary. Is there a better way to start off your week?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Newt Gingrich a Catholic
The Internet is a wondrous tool for so many reasons, but I relived one of them today for perhaps the thousandth time. I am talking about accidental discoveries, which happen to me routinely, but are one of the WWW characteristics that I've come to take for granted.
So anyhow...I get a daily e-mail notification from TIME magazine called "The Page" from reporter Mark Halperin, detailing several news stories. I clicked on a link that was about Newt Gingrich, but appeared to be some opinion piece...and in the process, found out that Newt Gingrich has become the Roman Catholic Church's most recent high-profile convert. Rod Dreher quotes Christopher Buckly in this blog post about what kind of catechism student Gingrich must have been. One can only imagine...but it is fun to do so!
There is also cogitation about whether or not Newt's conversion is genuine and heartfelt or a politically calculated decision. Who can tell? I choose to believe the former and here is why: I am a fan of Newt Gingrich's ideas (for the most part, 95% of the time), but have never felt that he has been more than religious on a token basis until very recent years.
I read Steve Gillon's book The Pact a couple of months ago, which seemed to substantiate what I've just stated. (It is a great read, by the way, all about the rivalry and both mutual respect and distaste that Gingrich and Clinton shared for each others' political skills and beliefs, respectively). Gingrich grew up in the Deep South, in Georgia, where Baptist church identification and attendance was ubiquitous. This is both a blessing and a curse, a benefit in the sense that familiarity with the doctrines of Christianity on some level tends to occur in a broad percentage of people, but a problem from the perspective that said familiarity seldom rises above a surface knowledge. It seems to me that Gingrich, following his fall from power in 1998 and subsequent dissolution of his marriage, which stemmed from an affair with his current wife, has done some real soul-searching. He has authored a recent book(let) and filmed a documentary on "Rediscovering God in America", both unread and unseen by me, so I can't comment any further on them. He has also gone on Dr. Dobson's program and admitted that he hadn't always been the family man he should have been, etc., etc. None of this proves anything in and of itself, of course, and only God knows hearts. I suppose your viewpoint on all of this will directly correlate to how you felt about Gingrich all along, and how you tend to feel about humanity in general, particularly politicians.
I have noticed a renewed interest in the last few years in the ancient traditions and disciplines of Christianity. It is easy to me to see how someone on a spiritual quest could arrive where Newt has, given the current environment. It will be interesting to see if much more is made of this in the days ahead.
So anyhow...I get a daily e-mail notification from TIME magazine called "The Page" from reporter Mark Halperin, detailing several news stories. I clicked on a link that was about Newt Gingrich, but appeared to be some opinion piece...and in the process, found out that Newt Gingrich has become the Roman Catholic Church's most recent high-profile convert. Rod Dreher quotes Christopher Buckly in this blog post about what kind of catechism student Gingrich must have been. One can only imagine...but it is fun to do so!
There is also cogitation about whether or not Newt's conversion is genuine and heartfelt or a politically calculated decision. Who can tell? I choose to believe the former and here is why: I am a fan of Newt Gingrich's ideas (for the most part, 95% of the time), but have never felt that he has been more than religious on a token basis until very recent years.
I read Steve Gillon's book The Pact a couple of months ago, which seemed to substantiate what I've just stated. (It is a great read, by the way, all about the rivalry and both mutual respect and distaste that Gingrich and Clinton shared for each others' political skills and beliefs, respectively). Gingrich grew up in the Deep South, in Georgia, where Baptist church identification and attendance was ubiquitous. This is both a blessing and a curse, a benefit in the sense that familiarity with the doctrines of Christianity on some level tends to occur in a broad percentage of people, but a problem from the perspective that said familiarity seldom rises above a surface knowledge. It seems to me that Gingrich, following his fall from power in 1998 and subsequent dissolution of his marriage, which stemmed from an affair with his current wife, has done some real soul-searching. He has authored a recent book(let) and filmed a documentary on "Rediscovering God in America", both unread and unseen by me, so I can't comment any further on them. He has also gone on Dr. Dobson's program and admitted that he hadn't always been the family man he should have been, etc., etc. None of this proves anything in and of itself, of course, and only God knows hearts. I suppose your viewpoint on all of this will directly correlate to how you felt about Gingrich all along, and how you tend to feel about humanity in general, particularly politicians.
I have noticed a renewed interest in the last few years in the ancient traditions and disciplines of Christianity. It is easy to me to see how someone on a spiritual quest could arrive where Newt has, given the current environment. It will be interesting to see if much more is made of this in the days ahead.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
So what do you think?
About the current crisis, that is. Are you scared? If so, what are you doing about it? Do you not think it's really a big deal; in other words, calling it a "crisis" is engaging in hyperbole? Or maybe you have given up a long time ago because you have concluded that the politicians will never do anything of substance, so why try? Are you figuring everything will calm down at some point if we just ride it out?
There is a method to my mad questioning here, namely that I really want to hear what you think, whether you are just stumbling across this blog or you read it whenever you see that there has been a new post. Yes, for the first time, I am actively soliciting comments to a post, rather than just being happy that the counter registers an additional visit. So please at least respond briefly with your thoughts on this.
I have been saying for months that we are living in very momentous times. Books will be written about this era for decades, perhaps centuries to come. And I do believe we are in deep-seated crisis. The market has rallied over the last several days and gone up about 600 points. Currently, the Dow hovers around 7200. My guess, however, is that this is a bear rally, and that it will sink again. I was talking to a friend this evening who thinks we've probably found the bottom at circa 6500. I hope he's right, but I doubt it.
Here is my core belief about the whole mess. It is a prime learning opportunity for us as American citizens. We are, one on one, quite limited in what we can do about it in terms of an immediate effect. But here is what I have decided to do.
This tumble in the world economy has highlighted for me what I don't know. It has also focused a glaring spotlight on the ignorance of the ostensibly smartest among us who claim such vast reservoirs of knowledge.
The vast bulk of the American people really do not understand the financial system of this country and how it works, including me. The more I learn about the Federal Reserve System, the more uneasy I feel about it. Additionally, the closer I look at that organization, the more all fingers point to the rise of the progressive movement of the early part of the 20th century that Jonah Goldberg so eloquently reports on in his excellent bestseller Liberal Fascism. I need to dig a little deeper on this...no, make that a lot deeper. I have a feeling I won't be happy with what I uncover.
But beyond that and even more urgently, the American people, including many of the best and brightest among us (and I mean that without any sarcastic connotation at all) have lost touch with Constitutional principles. I have been hearing Glenn Beck talk about the book The 5,000 Year Leap for quite a few months now. I finally bit the bullet and bought it. I am about 100 pages in, and my world has been rocked. I had no idea the apple had rolled this far downhill from the tree. I can tell that I have embarked on a long overdue lifelong quest: to understand the Constitution and advocate restoration of its truths to the public square, whatever that entails.
We cannot fight error with ignorance. We cannot combat foolish policies when we don't comprehend our own foundations. So I will be starting a weekly study of this book on Thursday, March 26 with 3 of my good friends; we'll be assisting the local and the global economies by meeting at Starbucks every Thursday night for an hour or so of discussion. And I will be recommending this book to everyone I come across who is interested in the welfare of the USA.
I don't think the world is ending. I also don't believe that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. (I could tip my hand right now and say I'm not a pre-millenialist, but that is another matter for another time.) But I do not believe the continuation of America as we know it is assured. In fact, the survival of the America we know and love as a beacon of freedom and dynamic growth has never been more in jeopardy. I do not speak these words lightly. We have faced trials from our very beginning, including a Civil War where more American lives were lost than in any other conflict, two world wars and a number of horrendous Presidencies, among a host of other evils. Yet, we suffer from an absence of common values in this country that brought us through the previously cited turbulence. (Read the book!)
It need not be so. I pray it does not unfold as it could. So I am trying to educate myself and others and to make my voice heard. I will not be silent. I want my children to live with the freedoms that I have enjoyed. I desire the same for my grandchildren and their offspring.
But if it is not to be...I want to be able, as an old man, to look those whom I love in the eye and say that the United States of America was worth fighting for and I acted accordingly.
What I am doing is only a start. What are you thinking about? How are you contributing? And how are you acting, rather than hunkering down and taking it?
There is a method to my mad questioning here, namely that I really want to hear what you think, whether you are just stumbling across this blog or you read it whenever you see that there has been a new post. Yes, for the first time, I am actively soliciting comments to a post, rather than just being happy that the counter registers an additional visit. So please at least respond briefly with your thoughts on this.
I have been saying for months that we are living in very momentous times. Books will be written about this era for decades, perhaps centuries to come. And I do believe we are in deep-seated crisis. The market has rallied over the last several days and gone up about 600 points. Currently, the Dow hovers around 7200. My guess, however, is that this is a bear rally, and that it will sink again. I was talking to a friend this evening who thinks we've probably found the bottom at circa 6500. I hope he's right, but I doubt it.
Here is my core belief about the whole mess. It is a prime learning opportunity for us as American citizens. We are, one on one, quite limited in what we can do about it in terms of an immediate effect. But here is what I have decided to do.
This tumble in the world economy has highlighted for me what I don't know. It has also focused a glaring spotlight on the ignorance of the ostensibly smartest among us who claim such vast reservoirs of knowledge.
The vast bulk of the American people really do not understand the financial system of this country and how it works, including me. The more I learn about the Federal Reserve System, the more uneasy I feel about it. Additionally, the closer I look at that organization, the more all fingers point to the rise of the progressive movement of the early part of the 20th century that Jonah Goldberg so eloquently reports on in his excellent bestseller Liberal Fascism. I need to dig a little deeper on this...no, make that a lot deeper. I have a feeling I won't be happy with what I uncover.
But beyond that and even more urgently, the American people, including many of the best and brightest among us (and I mean that without any sarcastic connotation at all) have lost touch with Constitutional principles. I have been hearing Glenn Beck talk about the book The 5,000 Year Leap for quite a few months now. I finally bit the bullet and bought it. I am about 100 pages in, and my world has been rocked. I had no idea the apple had rolled this far downhill from the tree. I can tell that I have embarked on a long overdue lifelong quest: to understand the Constitution and advocate restoration of its truths to the public square, whatever that entails.
We cannot fight error with ignorance. We cannot combat foolish policies when we don't comprehend our own foundations. So I will be starting a weekly study of this book on Thursday, March 26 with 3 of my good friends; we'll be assisting the local and the global economies by meeting at Starbucks every Thursday night for an hour or so of discussion. And I will be recommending this book to everyone I come across who is interested in the welfare of the USA.
I don't think the world is ending. I also don't believe that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. (I could tip my hand right now and say I'm not a pre-millenialist, but that is another matter for another time.) But I do not believe the continuation of America as we know it is assured. In fact, the survival of the America we know and love as a beacon of freedom and dynamic growth has never been more in jeopardy. I do not speak these words lightly. We have faced trials from our very beginning, including a Civil War where more American lives were lost than in any other conflict, two world wars and a number of horrendous Presidencies, among a host of other evils. Yet, we suffer from an absence of common values in this country that brought us through the previously cited turbulence. (Read the book!)
It need not be so. I pray it does not unfold as it could. So I am trying to educate myself and others and to make my voice heard. I will not be silent. I want my children to live with the freedoms that I have enjoyed. I desire the same for my grandchildren and their offspring.
But if it is not to be...I want to be able, as an old man, to look those whom I love in the eye and say that the United States of America was worth fighting for and I acted accordingly.
What I am doing is only a start. What are you thinking about? How are you contributing? And how are you acting, rather than hunkering down and taking it?
I'm back
Yes, I know tomorrow, it would have been 2 weeks since I last posted anything, and I have not posted about anything that occurred subsequent to Rush's speech. Speaking of that, I had no idea I was as much a part of history as I was! In the era of fast-paced events that characterizes our time, for a speech to receive the play for 2 weeks that this one has in the media is something of a rarity. Yet, it is still being discussed.
Somewhere in the last 2 weeks, the first anniversary of this blog came and went. I wondered how long it would last, and I'm sure a few others did, too. I am still not exactly sure what I'm doing here; there really is not a consistent subtext to it all, and I tend to post when I feel like it rather than as circumstances demand, but I am having fun. So perhaps that is what matters most when it comes to blogging, if I'm not doing it for a living.
In any event, I am back, and ready to resume duties. I guess I was speakered, conferenced and in general, tuckered out after CPAC, though it was one of the most enjoyable experiences of my life. (And I had to complete my classes once I got back home.) So onward we go...
Somewhere in the last 2 weeks, the first anniversary of this blog came and went. I wondered how long it would last, and I'm sure a few others did, too. I am still not exactly sure what I'm doing here; there really is not a consistent subtext to it all, and I tend to post when I feel like it rather than as circumstances demand, but I am having fun. So perhaps that is what matters most when it comes to blogging, if I'm not doing it for a living.
In any event, I am back, and ready to resume duties. I guess I was speakered, conferenced and in general, tuckered out after CPAC, though it was one of the most enjoyable experiences of my life. (And I had to complete my classes once I got back home.) So onward we go...
Monday, March 2, 2009
Rush Limbaugh's speech
7:06 PM—We are sitting in the Detroit airport waiting for our 9:15 flight on home to Indy, with no free Wi Fi available, contrary to what I had expected. So I am forced once again to go ahead and post what I wanted to this evening, but just to wait several hours to actually get it up on the blog.
I might as well cut the chase and go straight to my impressions of Rush Limbaugh in person. Again, you can sneer if you want, but I’ll say it anyway: I don’t consider myself a celebrity hound, by this point in my life; in other words, I don’t look goggly-eyed at someone just because they are famous or have a measure of renown and for no other reason. Nonetheless, seeing Rush Limbaugh speak represented the definite fulfillment of one of those items that I’d classify in a section headed “I’d love for it to happen, but I doubt it ever will.” I have listened to Rush Limbaugh for going on 16 years now, and I still remember where I was (on a farm in Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania) when I first heard those one-of-a-kind “vocal vibrations.” I was talking later to Jed about what I’m about to say next, something that I find more and more difficult to comprehend the longer I live. Those of us who love Rush are endlessly excoriated and belittled by those who don’t as mind-numbed robots whom he drags around by the nose. Why is this? I think, at one point anyway, Howard Stern’s listenership might have been numerically similar to Rush’s. Howard Stern is someone whose viewpoints on most issues (I’m presuming here, since I’ve never listened to a second of his show) and certainly, whose values couldn’t be more antithetical to my own. Contrary to what is true for Rush, I would say that Stern and the lifestyle he advocates, by default at least, are actually dangerous to the well-being of the country. Yet, I would never argue that his listeners, even the majority of them, are lacking in intelligence or so enthralled by Stern’s persona that they don’t think for themselves. My hunch is this: Rush actually makes a positive difference in those of who have listened to him for a long period of time. He stirs us to action. Listening to Rush Limbaugh, for me, has not been an activity that has occurred in a vacuum. Because of starting to listen to Rush at age 18, I have read and/or purchased books and/or columns by the likes of George Will, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams and countless others. Along an ancillary line, Rush has enabled the rise of Glenn Beck, who has broadened our horizons by exposing us to recent works such as The 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen and Meltdown by Thomas Woods, Jr. and renewed our interest in the Founding Fathers. This educational process then threatens those who hold opposing views and want to see policies implemented that are in opposition to what we support. Of course, then, their goals are inhibited by an educated public. So they resort to the tactics that come naturally to them anyway: ad hominem attacks and name calling.
Well, they can try all they want, but they’ll never succeed. You would think the naysayers would just pack it in after an unparalleled 20 years of record-level accomplishments, but they keep engaging in their mean-spiritedness, which just reinforces the determination of Rush’s fans. So, as the kids say today, “It’s all good!”
Rush was supposed to start at 5:00, but after a hilarious introduction by conference organizer Lisa de Pasquale, (who was invited to listen to Rush for the first time in 1994 as a 16-year-old in the automobile of a boy on whom she had a crush at the time, so her tag line was “I can say I was introduced to Rush Limbaugh in the backseat of a car”) Rush bounded onto the stage at 4:45 to absolutely thunderous and sustained applause that probably went on for close to 2 minutes. To say it was pure electricity doesn’t do it justice.
Rarely have I ever seen such a stellar example of “under promising and over delivering” as we were privy to who were in the audience. Rush came out early, and was scheduled to speak for 20 minutes. He spoke for 90! And I think he could have gone on even longer.
Impressions: He had a few notes at the podium, but used no prompter, which he himself pointed out for the benefit of the “Drive-bys.” The notes he did have must have amounted to just a few words here and there, and he probably only looked at them 5 or 6 times in the whole hour and a half, just to remind himself of what he wanted to say. If you are a listener to his program, you would have noticed different characteristics coming through as he spoke, including the imitations of different personality types, though he didn’t do any Clinton mimicking. (Joe Scarborough did a couple times during his brief speech on Thursday and it was pretty good.)
Rush was clearly fearful because of something Dave Keene and Lisa de Pasquale had told him backstage before he came out for the speech, and he communicated his reservations to the crowd. He said he had been informed that this year, it was almost as if being out of power had freed people up and they felt they didn’t have to hold back anymore from expressing certain opinions. He indicated that this was understandable, but said that we really do not want to be a permanent minority and it might become too easy to get used to exactly that!
Rush also addressed head-on the “mysterious anger of the Drive-by media” over his stated wish that Obama fails. I had heard him discuss this on his show a number of times, but never this directly and concisely. Basically, why should he want him to do anything other than fail if success for the implementation of his programs equates to failure for the country? It is a very simple explanation, though tough to swallow for someone with no historical context, which many in the media evidently do not have. (Of course, another Rush truism that comes to my mind, which I often use myself is that “the historical perspective of most people begins with the day they were born.”)
The overarching theme of the speech, in Rush’s own words, would be this: “It breaks my heart that President Obama, with all of the communications skills that he obviously possesses, is using those very gifts to tear down this country and the institutions and practices that have made it great rather than building them up.” Some context is needed for this. Rush is enormously successful financially; I believe his most recent contract, over 8 years, pays him a total of $400 million. Yet, life has not always been so for Rush. In fact, his success came fairly late in life, after a good deal of floundering and stumbling. It is easy for those of us looking on who are young and still making our way in life with some financial difficulties here and there to look at Rush and envy his “luck.” I have owned Rush’s first book The Way Things Ought to Be for many years, but hadn’t cracked the cover in a decade, probably. Just yesterday, I opened it up to Chapter 2, where he tells the story of how his program went national. If you want a real revelation of the GI-NORMOUS risks (plural, not singular) that Rush and Ed McLaughlin (the former ABC executive who sponsored him initially) too in syndicating the program in 1988, you need to read that chapter. I reiterate all of that to say that I can easily understand why Rush and others like him look at the economic pilfering in which the Obama team (and yes, Hank Paulson and his lackeys) have been engaging and become very vocal about it. It undermines everything they have achieved and enabled so many others to do.
Beyond that, though, Rush brought the conference to its feet when he declared that conservatism, first and foremost, is about people; conservatives love people and do not consider them expendable. I believe that this is a core Christian principle, but I have to admit I had never thought of it as a politically conservative tenet, per se. But as with so many concepts, Rush is right once again! We are about the individual, not pitting one group against another.
Rush’s speech ended rather suddenly; I think he realized that it was past 6:00; I think the conference was contractually obligated to conclude then, and perhaps he needed to be back home by a certain time that night. He concluded with a profoundly moving expression of gratitude to the audience for our love and support to him and his family over the years, saying he could never overemphasize what we mean to him. Again, you have to be a fan to understand. Cynics could look on and say, sure, that’s how he makes his money. You can’t really respond to that other than to reply that that misses the point. We wouldn’t be listening if there wasn’t a substantial, quality return on our minutes spent tuned into the show. And isn’t that the case with anything in life to which we commit our resources?
The evening concluded with a presentation to Rush of the “Defender of the Constitution” award: an original document actually signed by Benjamin Franklin. What a great way to conclude CPAC 2009!
I might as well cut the chase and go straight to my impressions of Rush Limbaugh in person. Again, you can sneer if you want, but I’ll say it anyway: I don’t consider myself a celebrity hound, by this point in my life; in other words, I don’t look goggly-eyed at someone just because they are famous or have a measure of renown and for no other reason. Nonetheless, seeing Rush Limbaugh speak represented the definite fulfillment of one of those items that I’d classify in a section headed “I’d love for it to happen, but I doubt it ever will.” I have listened to Rush Limbaugh for going on 16 years now, and I still remember where I was (on a farm in Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania) when I first heard those one-of-a-kind “vocal vibrations.” I was talking later to Jed about what I’m about to say next, something that I find more and more difficult to comprehend the longer I live. Those of us who love Rush are endlessly excoriated and belittled by those who don’t as mind-numbed robots whom he drags around by the nose. Why is this? I think, at one point anyway, Howard Stern’s listenership might have been numerically similar to Rush’s. Howard Stern is someone whose viewpoints on most issues (I’m presuming here, since I’ve never listened to a second of his show) and certainly, whose values couldn’t be more antithetical to my own. Contrary to what is true for Rush, I would say that Stern and the lifestyle he advocates, by default at least, are actually dangerous to the well-being of the country. Yet, I would never argue that his listeners, even the majority of them, are lacking in intelligence or so enthralled by Stern’s persona that they don’t think for themselves. My hunch is this: Rush actually makes a positive difference in those of who have listened to him for a long period of time. He stirs us to action. Listening to Rush Limbaugh, for me, has not been an activity that has occurred in a vacuum. Because of starting to listen to Rush at age 18, I have read and/or purchased books and/or columns by the likes of George Will, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams and countless others. Along an ancillary line, Rush has enabled the rise of Glenn Beck, who has broadened our horizons by exposing us to recent works such as The 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen and Meltdown by Thomas Woods, Jr. and renewed our interest in the Founding Fathers. This educational process then threatens those who hold opposing views and want to see policies implemented that are in opposition to what we support. Of course, then, their goals are inhibited by an educated public. So they resort to the tactics that come naturally to them anyway: ad hominem attacks and name calling.
Well, they can try all they want, but they’ll never succeed. You would think the naysayers would just pack it in after an unparalleled 20 years of record-level accomplishments, but they keep engaging in their mean-spiritedness, which just reinforces the determination of Rush’s fans. So, as the kids say today, “It’s all good!”
Rush was supposed to start at 5:00, but after a hilarious introduction by conference organizer Lisa de Pasquale, (who was invited to listen to Rush for the first time in 1994 as a 16-year-old in the automobile of a boy on whom she had a crush at the time, so her tag line was “I can say I was introduced to Rush Limbaugh in the backseat of a car”) Rush bounded onto the stage at 4:45 to absolutely thunderous and sustained applause that probably went on for close to 2 minutes. To say it was pure electricity doesn’t do it justice.
Rarely have I ever seen such a stellar example of “under promising and over delivering” as we were privy to who were in the audience. Rush came out early, and was scheduled to speak for 20 minutes. He spoke for 90! And I think he could have gone on even longer.
Impressions: He had a few notes at the podium, but used no prompter, which he himself pointed out for the benefit of the “Drive-bys.” The notes he did have must have amounted to just a few words here and there, and he probably only looked at them 5 or 6 times in the whole hour and a half, just to remind himself of what he wanted to say. If you are a listener to his program, you would have noticed different characteristics coming through as he spoke, including the imitations of different personality types, though he didn’t do any Clinton mimicking. (Joe Scarborough did a couple times during his brief speech on Thursday and it was pretty good.)
Rush was clearly fearful because of something Dave Keene and Lisa de Pasquale had told him backstage before he came out for the speech, and he communicated his reservations to the crowd. He said he had been informed that this year, it was almost as if being out of power had freed people up and they felt they didn’t have to hold back anymore from expressing certain opinions. He indicated that this was understandable, but said that we really do not want to be a permanent minority and it might become too easy to get used to exactly that!
Rush also addressed head-on the “mysterious anger of the Drive-by media” over his stated wish that Obama fails. I had heard him discuss this on his show a number of times, but never this directly and concisely. Basically, why should he want him to do anything other than fail if success for the implementation of his programs equates to failure for the country? It is a very simple explanation, though tough to swallow for someone with no historical context, which many in the media evidently do not have. (Of course, another Rush truism that comes to my mind, which I often use myself is that “the historical perspective of most people begins with the day they were born.”)
The overarching theme of the speech, in Rush’s own words, would be this: “It breaks my heart that President Obama, with all of the communications skills that he obviously possesses, is using those very gifts to tear down this country and the institutions and practices that have made it great rather than building them up.” Some context is needed for this. Rush is enormously successful financially; I believe his most recent contract, over 8 years, pays him a total of $400 million. Yet, life has not always been so for Rush. In fact, his success came fairly late in life, after a good deal of floundering and stumbling. It is easy for those of us looking on who are young and still making our way in life with some financial difficulties here and there to look at Rush and envy his “luck.” I have owned Rush’s first book The Way Things Ought to Be for many years, but hadn’t cracked the cover in a decade, probably. Just yesterday, I opened it up to Chapter 2, where he tells the story of how his program went national. If you want a real revelation of the GI-NORMOUS risks (plural, not singular) that Rush and Ed McLaughlin (the former ABC executive who sponsored him initially) too in syndicating the program in 1988, you need to read that chapter. I reiterate all of that to say that I can easily understand why Rush and others like him look at the economic pilfering in which the Obama team (and yes, Hank Paulson and his lackeys) have been engaging and become very vocal about it. It undermines everything they have achieved and enabled so many others to do.
Beyond that, though, Rush brought the conference to its feet when he declared that conservatism, first and foremost, is about people; conservatives love people and do not consider them expendable. I believe that this is a core Christian principle, but I have to admit I had never thought of it as a politically conservative tenet, per se. But as with so many concepts, Rush is right once again! We are about the individual, not pitting one group against another.
Rush’s speech ended rather suddenly; I think he realized that it was past 6:00; I think the conference was contractually obligated to conclude then, and perhaps he needed to be back home by a certain time that night. He concluded with a profoundly moving expression of gratitude to the audience for our love and support to him and his family over the years, saying he could never overemphasize what we mean to him. Again, you have to be a fan to understand. Cynics could look on and say, sure, that’s how he makes his money. You can’t really respond to that other than to reply that that misses the point. We wouldn’t be listening if there wasn’t a substantial, quality return on our minutes spent tuned into the show. And isn’t that the case with anything in life to which we commit our resources?
The evening concluded with a presentation to Rush of the “Defender of the Constitution” award: an original document actually signed by Benjamin Franklin. What a great way to conclude CPAC 2009!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
