RSS Feed MenuOn “Meet the Press” this weekend, David Brooks used the word “insane” to characterize Rush Limbaugh’s analogy of Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. Byron York of the Washington Examiner contacted Limbaugh and received this comment:
Everyone seems to ignore that Pelosi started this, saying town hall participants were showing up with swastikas, etc. That’s calling them Nazis, as Dick Durbin referred to our Gitmo interrogators from the Senate floor. I’ve been listening to the left compare George W. Bush to Hitler for eight years. I’ve been listening to Democrats and the left compare conservatism to Nazis my whole career. This time I responded. In kind, by comparing the radical left policies of the Nazis to today’s radical left leadership of the Democrat Party. I’m not surprised they don’t like it.
Yes but Durbin tearfully apologized on the Senate floor for his foul remark.
When Moveon.org briefly hosted a member-produced ad equating Bush and Hitler, that group too hastily disavowed and retracted the ad.
Those are the only two examples I recall from the Bush years of any prominent Democrat or left-of-center group using this kind of language. I would hope that sincere regret motivated Durbin and Moveon. I suspect though that they were also aware that they had done themselves extreme political damage with these reckless comments. The American voter dislikes and punishes intemperate talk – one reason that, for example, Howard Dean never made it to the presidency.
When Rush Limbaugh talks in this way, it’s not just Democrats who do not like it. It is everybody who cares about truth. Everybody who respects the conventions of American democracy, which takes for granted the basic good faith of people on the other side of the political divide. Oh – and also – everybody who does any real honor to the memories of the Nazis’ victims.
Rush does not care about any of that of course. He’s the center of attention, which is how he likes it. President Obama likes it too. The crazier Republicans look, the more reasonable Obama looks by comparison. When Rush calls Obama a Nazi, that does not hurt Obama. It hurts every Republican who by remaining silent, seems to assent.
ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Jim Pier // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:42 am
“Your remarks would have more credibility if you were an outspoken critic of the liberals when they called Bush Hitler. Were you?”
………Actually yes…..Fringe mania made the Democratics look totally stupid and over the top which is what is happening with the Republicans now except in their case it’s not the fringe …….Democrats would have been much better limiting themselves to a description of Bush as a incompetent lightweight of limited intelligence and poor judgement which was entirely accurate…..no hyperbole was necessary because the facts spoke for themselves
greg_barton // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:16 pm
How is Rush calling Obama a Nazi different from Palin claiming Obama will kill seniors for economic gain?
ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:28 am
greg_barton // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:16 pm
‘How is Rush calling Obama a Nazi different from Palin claiming Obama will kill seniors for economic gain?”
……….There is no difference…….both are manifestations of the extreme partisanship and hysteria which have overtaken the GOP
txanne // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:32 am
Jim Pier // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:42 am
“Your remarks would have more credibility if you were an outspoken critic of the liberals when they called Bush Hitler. Were you?”
If you would provide me the name of a prominent liberal who called Bush Hitler, I would be glad to codemn their comments.
As to Limbaugh responding to Pelosi, I have already adressed that
txanne // Aug 10, 2009 at 11:58 am
“First of all, about Rush’s attack on Pelosi’s statement. I think Pelosi is a terrible public speaker. She always appears nervous and tongue tied. That said, I never interpreted what she said as calling the protesters nazi-like or nazi sympathizers. I took it to mean they were carrying signs with swaztikas, wearing t-shirts that depicted Obama as Hitler, and comparing heathcare reform to some kind of facist movement.
I guess other people could see it differently. But what is undeniable, is that many protestors are engaging in that Obama/Hitler/Nazi meme.”
Also I think the op-ed in the USA today by the speaker and Steney Hoyer was ill-advised, whiney and didnt advance the conversation. That said, the behaviour exhibited by some of the people at the townhalls makes it pretty clear; this is not about healthcare, this is about rejecting the election results and re-fighting the same battle that has already been decided by the people on Nov 4, 2008.
So many of the people speaking at the meetings have nothing to say about healthcare but are channeling Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, parroting talking points about liberty and tyrany. Now they swear this is not a partisan issue but, where were they 4 years ago? 2 years ago? a year ago?
balconesfault // Aug 12, 2009 at 12:25 pm
So many of the people speaking at the meetings have nothing to say about healthcare but are channeling Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, parroting talking points about liberty and tyrany.
And let’s face it – anyone who considers a public option to represent tyranny and socialism and a frontal attack on liberty … but who supports continuance of Medicare … is incoherent. There might be many sources of that incoherence – an “I got mine Jack” attitude among some seniors, gross political calculation among some politicians, an abject misunderstanding of what Medicare is, as seems to be evident among many speakers at Town Hall meetings … but it is incoherent, and should be treated as such.
Now, there are reasonable conservative arguments against universal healthcare that can make room for continuing Medicare. These arguments tend to be based on wonkish discussions of number crunching and social engineering. But when liberty and freedom as rallying cries replace those wonkish discussions, and flags come out and the marching drums are beating, the pro-Medicare / anti-Public Option arguments start to sound a lot more cynical or stupid.
Jim Pier // Aug 13, 2009 at 2:12 am
otto
” . . . manifestations of the extreme partisanship and hysteria which have overtaken the GOP.”
If we are hysterical, it is entirely justified by your election of a leftist President whose regard for the US is somewhere between contempt and embarrassment. No doubt several years ago you were appreciative and complimentary of the balance and bipartisanship displayed by the GOP. Too bad things have turned so ugly now. I wish they would just be quiet and do what Obama tells them to do. Thank God we enjoy the magnanimous bipartisanship of Obama, Pelosi, and the Democrats.
Jim Pier // Aug 13, 2009 at 2:32 am
balc
“And let’s face it – anyone who considers a public option to represent tyranny and socialism and a frontal attack on liberty … but who supports continuance of Medicare … is incoherent.”
“If you can’t imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don’t understand it yet.”
–Anthony Weston
First, I and many others do not support the continuance of Medicare, so our opposition to the Public Option is consistent. Second, there is a qualitative difference between the two, and it is this: Medicare was introduced in I believe 1965 to address the difficulty for the elderly of affording health insurance and/or health care (an eventuality precipitated naturally by government intervention–the special tax treatment of medical benefits, which resulted in an acceleration of health care inflation beginning in WWII). It was not substituting for insurance they had and liked, it was filling a void. It was to be paid for out of the wages of workers, and it was sold as a social compact whereby remission of the taxes would eventually be repaid when one had retired and enjoyed benefits. Granted, this is nothing more than brilliant political marketing, but it is there. The Public Option has no such redeeming virtue, and it does threaten existing coverage, as I am sure you are well aware. If anybody believes Obama when he incessantly declaims “If you like what you have, you can keep it,” I’d love to have some of whatever it is they are smoking.
balc again: “an “I got mine Jack” attitude among some seniors, gross political calculation among some politicians”
Why are so many liberals so suspicious? Why is any disagreement with you presumptively indicative of bad faith? Why the intellectual arrogance? Rather than begin from that point of view, which allows little room for even listening to an argument, much less considering it, why not assume good faith until shown otherwise? There’s nothing to lose in considering another point of view.
Jim Pier // Aug 13, 2009 at 2:52 am
balc –
And another thing — I left out the primary issue with the Public Option, which is of course that it is a thinly veiled Trojan horse whose real purpose is to usher in the leftist Valhalla of completely socialized health insurance in America. You protest? Sorry, Barney Frank let it slip, as have others. But all it takes is a rational examination of the program, and the conclusion is almost inevitable. If you lose your existing plan, you are coerced into the Public Option. The employer will save money by dumping his private plan and paying the ‘penalty.’ The Public Option will be financed by tax revenues, and it will dictate reimbursement rates well below market, two subsidies which will allow it to so deeply undercut private insurers that the industry is decimated or eliminated in short order. Once that is done, it’s pretty much a fait accompli that we have socialized medicine. So we can look forward to that rosy future of slowly but steadily declining quality and quantity, and not-so-slowly but steadily climbing taxes to finance it. The dream of a liberal–the reverse of capitalism: pay a lot more for less of something that’s not as good.
But here’s the clincher for me: If all the Public Option really is intended to be is another health insurance program competing among the other 1300 already out there, then what would be the point of having it anyway? Why would Obama and Pelosi be hell-bent on getting it passed before too many people knew how badly we were being hosed? Answer: that’s not what it is. It is the holy grail of American socialists. It is also terrible economics, grossly unjust, and expensive as hell. And I’m sorry, but it is tyranny. When the state coerces me into paying for someone else’s medical insurance or medical care, ultimately at the point of a gun, that is tyranny.
Bottom line: Public Option: absolutely no value to Americans; devious subterfuge to sneak nationalized medicine into America; breaks the bank; destroys medical care. The only reason anyone is even contemplating enacting this insane legislation is because they are insanely leftist.
Jim Pier // Aug 13, 2009 at 3:08 am
txanne
“the behaviour exhibited by some of the people at the townhalls makes it pretty clear; this is not about healthcare, this is about rejecting the election results and re-fighting the same battle that has already been decided by the people on Nov 4, 2008.”
this puzzles me. It’s never about what it’s about. The reality of it is, health insurance IS what it’s about. If Obama had such a wonderful solution, he would get up and perform his oratory magic, and explain it to America piece by piece, proving to us that this really is the best solution to the so-called crisis. But he doesn’t have a wonderful program, he has a disaster of a program that will benefit a small subgroup at the much greater expense of the great majority of Americans. As such, he must distract, redirect, deflect, obfuscate, dissemble, and, as Simon Cowell would say, if I’m being honest, lie about the program. I and virtually every conservative, many elderly, and many regular people who have good health insurance through their employer are really angry and strongly opposed to this. It is not about re-fighting the election, although if he doesn’t change course that would be an attractive idea. The Democrats win an occasional Presidential election and you have to gloat about it. Well, things change mighty fast in politics. From here to November, 2010 is an eternity.
balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:31 am
Jim Pier:
If you lose your existing plan, you are coerced into the Public Option.
Coerced? As in … you actually have an option to dealing with insurance companies which are going to give you less coverage for more cost than they give group plans (unless you have a pre-existing condition, in which case they’ll give you no coverage at any affordable price).
The employer will save money by dumping his private plan and paying the ‘penalty.’
You are objecting to American businesses having another option which many small businessmen believe will make them more competitive? How very doctrinaire of you.
Public Option will be financed by tax revenues, and it will dictate reimbursement rates well below market
Since part of the goal of the Public Option is to expand insurance coverage to those uninsured who cannot afford insurance in today’s marketplace – either because of working in low wage contract jobs, or because they have pre-existing conditions that would cost astronomical premiums to cover on the open market – it’s inevitable that it will partially be financed by tax revenues. Without that, there’s no way to cover these people. Meanwhile, if reimbursement rates are set that far below market, there will be no incentive for providers to accept them, and the program will fail.
Meanwhile, I’m stymied by your “less for more” conclusion. Could you point to the healthcare system in the world that costs more per capita than the American system, yet provides less care?
balconesfault // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:38 am
Jim Pier: “When the state coerces me into paying for someone else’s medical insurance or medical care, ultimately at the point of a gun, that is tyranny.”
How do you feel about having to pay for someone else’s education, ultimately at the point of a gun?
How about paying for fire protection for their home? Police to protect their property? Does it bother you that your tax dollars are being used to support parks and museums in some other portion of the country, that you’ll never visit? What about bridges and highways in those distant locales?
Where is it that you draw your line in the sand and arm yourself to fight against the tax agents coming to steal your money in the name of socialism?
NH // Aug 13, 2009 at 9:10 pm
This is something that should preclude the Dems from ever getting elected again:
Have you ever read the racist, bigoted, scary supremacist rantings of the three who advise Obama now?
Holdren, Emanuel (E not R) and Sunstein?
Make your hair stand on end and these are people who should KNOW BETTER because they likely had ancestors KILLED by Nazis.
Reams of writing that have people scared for what they have planned for us.
Yes I will use the word NAZI because that is what they did, the same things being proposed by these three utopian elitist thugs.
The Dems should be no more after this scary puppet president.