November 2, 2009

Rush Limbaugh says Obama is a "man-child" and Sarah Palin is ready to be President.

Video and transcript here. I'll just do 2 excerpts for you:
WALLACE: You have now taken to calling Mr. Obama "the man-child president."

RUSH: Right.

WALLACE: What does that mean?

RUSH: Just -- he's (inaudible) he's a child. I think he's -- he's got a -- a five-minute career. He was in the Senate for 150 days. He was a community organizer in Chicago for however number of years. He really has no experience running anything. He's very young. I think he's got an out-of-this-world ego. He's very narcissistic. And he's able to focus all attention on him all the time. That -- that description is simply a way to cut through the noise and say he's immature, inexperienced, in over his head.
***
WALLACE: Sarah Palin -- you say that you admire her backbone. Do you really think she's ready to be president?

RUSH: Well, yes, I do. See, I am a -- one thing I do not do is follow conventional wisdom, and the conventional wisdom of Sarah Palin is she's not smart enough, she needs to bone up on the issues, she's a little unsophisticated, she -- Alaska, where's that? -- doesn't have the pedigree. I've seen -- she's the only thing that provided any kind of a spark for the Republican Party. This is not an endorsement, but I do have profound respect for Sarah Palin. There are not very many politicians who have been through what she's through -- been put through and still able to smile and be ebullient and upbeat. I mean, this woman, I think, is pretty tough.
Any contradiction detected?

214 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 214 of 214
chuck b. said...

(Feels good not necessarily to me. She's not as interesting as she used to be.)

hombre said...

fls wrote: She's the type of person I try to avoid. America can do better.

You didn't finish: "Unless, of course, we are talking about Democrats, in which case I am enthusiastic about a guy who espouses Black Liberation Theology and infanticide, pals around with bombers, screws bondholders in favor of unions, seeks earmarks for his wife's employer, dithers about war decisions, etc."

Largo said...

Obama has no private sector experience...

He has two kids.

Ba-Boom!

former law student said...

which case I am enthusiastic about a guy who espouses Black Liberation Theology and infanticide, pals around with bombers, screws bondholders in favor of unions, seeks earmarks for his wife's employer, dithers about war decisions, etc.

My, my, my -- so many thoughts packed into one sentence! I'll just pick one: is it true Republicans oppose aborting ancephalic fetuses because in their experience the reptilian brain is all you need to vote Republican?

Largo said...

Smokey the bear says:

Only you can stop feeding trolls.

Cedarford said...

bagoh20 said...
"And you don't get elected as the President of the Harvard Law Review unless you're pretty sharp...black or white.""

or a Nobel Peace Prize. You gotta earn that stuff. They don't give those kind of things out just to make statement.


That, Bagoh20, was a solid sterling silver retort.

With Obama, as with low GPA law&divinity school flunkout Algore, and failed DC Bar exam Hillary - media invests heavily in building up their hero's intellectual credentials.

Obama's grades at his HS, his 2-year transfer college, then Columbia are unknown. He did well at Harvard LS, but was simply in the top 30% as magna cum laude and rumors are rife at the Ivy grad schools that "C" work by a minority is upgraded to an A or B level by the profs and TAs.

After his selection as Editor, which was even written as more a popularity pick than a recognition of stellar abilities...Obama published no law review articles himself. The same once he became a law "lecturer" - as opposed to anyone trying to get tenure on the "professorial" track...Obama could get away as a lecturer with never publishing a single scholarly article. So he didn't.

The actual record of Obama's accomplishments are very thin..though he has a remarkable record of attracting powerful patrons as a community organizer after Columbia, then at Harvard, then in Chicago where he attracted the patronage of very powerful people that kept him and his wife in comfortable sinecures.

amba said...

sarah palin is the barak obama of the right. just because she was hideously and unfairly maligned by the press doesnt make her a good candidate for president of the u.s.

daubiere, whoever you are . . . word.

vw: candou

amba said...

I would have a tag "Palin is like Obama." Of course I know that they are not the least alike in content. But they are alike in form, in their relationship to the ideas they embody and the enthusiasts they inspire.

hombre said...

fls wrote: ...is it true Republicans oppose aborting ancephalic fetuses because in their experience the reptilian brain is all you need to vote Republican?

I think you mean "anencephalic." Since I'm not a Republican, I can't speak for them.

I assume, however, that many people oppose dumping newborns in wastebaskets to die from lack of medical care after failed abortions. Obama, on the other hand, supports the practice with enthusiasm, which must mean you, as his idolatrous toady, do too.

Bruce Hayden said...

The other at the top of his class from Harvard, was the first black President of the Law Review, college professor, a state senator, U.S. Senator and now President...

How about we see some grades? Or do you just invent stuff out of thin air? And, did you forget that he is "black"? And that may have helped him considerably getting on Law Review and being elected president thereof? We saw his one note, did the greatest presidential writer since Lincoln write anything else on LR? And, he was only a college professor by courtesy. Most law schools call them "adjunct professors". Knowing a bunch of them, these are not, typically, all that competitive of positions. Nothing like what Ann had to go through to get her job. And, yes, he voted "present" on the rare occasion he showed up in the less than 4 years he was a U.S. Senator.

And, as is blindingly obvious by his performance, BHO is probably the least qualified President of maybe the last 100 years. At least 80 years. Yes, I am putting him below accidental Presidents Truman and Ford.

Somehow Harvard Law Review is supposed to overcome less than 4 years of occasional attendance as a U.S. Senator as qualifications for the Presidency. Sorry, doesn't work.

But, then, I am of the opinion that a law degree is probably some of the worst preparation for the Presidency around. It doesn't really teach anything useful, and a lot of stuff that is counter-productive. You are essentially taught how to work on your own to solve problems (yes, LS is getting just a little better there, but that is only recent, and only a little). And definitely no skills at managing millions of employees.

And I don't think that any of us should be surprised that someone with no real experience outside of affirmative action admittance to a top law school, being a community activist, and a back bencher at the state and federal Senates would revert to his law school and shift into lawyer mode when the going got rough - demonizing his opponents, talking out of both sides of his mouth, breaking promises right and left, and continuously almost saying the opposite of what he really means. Not the actions of a President, but rather, a somewhat inexperienced attorney.

Gary Rosen said...

"tC-4... Good comment until you throw in the "Jewish run media" as Nixon's enemy."

t-guy, you obviously don't know C-fudd too well - everything else is filler in between his neurotic anti-Jewish obsession. The guy has less self-control than a junkie crawling through the gutter for a fix of cheap heroin.

As for Fudd's typically psuedo-intellectual claim that Nixon was the most "consequential" President since FDR that is quite a laugh. Nixon was one of the smartest guys ever to serve as Prez, and teamed up with Kissinger he ran a pretty shrewd foreign policy while trying to disentangle us from 'Nam, notably the trip to China to play off against the Soviets. But Nixon did nothing to change what had been the basic course of the country for decades in domestic policy (New Deal) or foreign policy (containment). Hell, he didn't even try to counter much of LBJ's Great Society.

Those changes were left to the actual most consequential POTUS of the last 75 years, Reagan. Fudd won't own up because Reagan was too buddy-buddy with the dreaded neocon Zionist cosmopolitan Trotskyist hook-nosed wire-pullers, aka Joooooos.

Bruce Hayden said...

Why am I a fan of Sarah Palin?

Mostly, I think because she has an amazing ability to speak around and through the filter that the traditional media tries to impose to make her points. And, that is why I think they hate her so much.

They had a story line all ready for her, and it was designed to get Obama elected, and now to keep him well entrenched in power. But, she sees it, and wants nothing to do with it, and so uses what she has available to go around them.

And, as a result, she is one of the most powerful Republicans around. Not from a point of view of delivering pork, but rather, in shaping the debate. It was she who got the meme of the "death panels" rolling, and was one of the first major Republicans to back Hoffman in NY 23,over RINO Scozzafava who is now out and ultimately gave away the game by throwing her support to her Democratic opponent. (And Gingrich really hurt himself by backing Scozzafava, someone who in the end would rather give the seat to the Democrats instead of a Conservative).

I just don't think that the Republicans are going to regain power until they can separate themselves from the Democrat-lites that ended up running the GOP while GW Bush was President. Tom DeLay-type Democrat-Lite corruption just isn't what this country is looking for right now. We just don't need another party competing for the lobbying dollars and the earmarks.

Tarzan said...

If you can't stand the heat (criticism, ethics complaints) get out of the kitchen.

And this is what I love about Sarah, because we all know she *can* stand the heat, but she gave up the job anyways. She acted in her own interest *and* in the interest of the state of Alaska by removing herself as a lightning rod for kook lawsuits.

She has not only DEMONSTRATED willingness and ability to take on corruption in her own party, she has DEMONSTRATED that she will put the needs of those she governs before her own need to remain in power as a career politician.

President in 2012 or R party chief, either way she gets my vote.

She stepped down responsibly after making sure everything was in good hands. And besides, Alaska's such a tiny, insignificant state that it pretty much runs itself, right?

Palm Tree Doc said...

From the Party that brought you Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton..... ... . .. .. . . ... .. ... ... .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . .. ...... . . .. .. . .Barack Obama: The MANCHILD Candidate. . . .. . .. . .. . ... . ... . . . ... . . . ... .. . . ... .. .... . . http://www.zazzle.com/palmtreedoc/gifts?cg=196571871401031123

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 214 of 214   Newer› Newest»