Rush on Ricochet
Boy, did Rush pound on Mike Murphy this morning! I guess he read Mike's post yesterday, which was, um, controversial around the Ricochet water cooler. Here's how Rush wound up his response to Mike's post:
So here's Murphy, who also feels personally insulted by O'Donnell's victory. It was a sure thing for Castle, but now they...OK, OK, you guys know more than we do. You conservatives know more than we professionals, you conservatives know more than we inside-the-beltway ruling class...OK. DeMint...Palin: Move to Delaware. You run the campaign. If we're so out of touch with America, you show us how it's done.
That's Mike Murphy. That is one of our guys. That is one of OUR guys!
OK Palin, OK DeMint. Get yourselves to Delaware. I'll sit here at my cocktail party. Apparently, that really bugs these people when you tell them they're trying to get their invitations lists to their cocktail parties maintained and shorn up.
Ouch. Well, Mike's a big boy. He can take it. As for me, I'm just amazingly thrilled and proud that Rush is reading Ricochet. And as the resident Squish around here, I have to say that -- as usual -- Rush makes a lot of sense:
The Limbaugh Rule: You got a liberal or RINO or a conservative, you vote conservative. Per-i-od! Exclamation point. That's the Limbaugh Rule.
We don't get into electability because we're not clairvoyant and we don't tell ourselves we can't. Just yesterday Christine O'Donnell had 50 grand on tap, and she was down 25 points and had no prayer. Today she's got over a million dollars and she's only down 11. In one day! Don't tell us we can't win!
That's another thing you people in the establishment have gotta stop. You've gotta stop telling us who can't win and who can, 'cause you don't know. Nobody knows 'til the votes are counted.
Yesterday's post by Mike inspired a lot of conversation. Some of it got a little heated; some of it got a little too personal; some of it may have crossed the line of civility. But despite that -- and I may be alone in thinking it ended up in a pretty civilized way -- it sure was edifying. Reasonable people can disagree -- and passionate reasonable people can disagree passionately. But you'd be hard-pressed to read all the way through that thread and not come out smarter.
But then you'd expect me to say that. I'm a total squish, after all.
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
I suspect the whole kerfuffle was a PR stunt dreamed up by some clever Hollywood smoothie.
Jul '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
I actually agreed with Mike. His point was that Palin and DeMint, having not done their homework, phoned in endorsements which were instrumental in the victory of a fatally-flawed candidate and that they now had an obligation to do their mightiest to make the best of it.
But most of the comments centered on Mike personally, his profession and his insider status.
And...geez, Rob, now that Ricochet is all over Hannity and Rush, you better raise the monthly charge to $347.00 (grandfathering, um...me) - or we old-timers will never get a snark in edgewise.
Jul '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
"Rush is Right" "Don't doubt me"
Jun '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
Kenneth: His point was that Palin and DeMint, having not done their homework, phoned in endorsements which were instrumental in the victory of a fatally-flawed candidate .
Perhaps, but Castle was no prim lookin' stargazer either.
Re: Rush on Ricochet
That was sort of the gist of the WSJ editorial this morning that Peter linked to.
That was unfortunate, but we're moving on. Healing, and all like that.
I like the way you think, Kenneth. That's a sound business mind you've got on your shoulders. I agree with all of this.
Except the part about grandfathering. Nobody rides for free, baby.
Jun '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
I'm just pleased to know that Rush is firmly on the side of the insurgents. I would be flattered if I knew for sure that he read the entire thread and found some of our ideas worth broadcasting to his audience. Ricochet members certainly have nothing to apologize for in terms of intellectual heft.
Edited on Sep 16, 2010 at 5:58pmMay '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
For $347 I'd expect a tote bag, a tee shirt, and a room in James Lileks' house.
Jul '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
Rob Long
That was sort of the gist of the WSJ editorial this morning that Peter linked to.
That was unfortunate, but we're moving on. Healing, and all like that.
I like the way you think, Kenneth. That's a sound business mind you've got on your shoulders. I agree with all of this.
Except the part about grandfathering. Nobody rides for free, baby. · Sep 16 at 5:53pm
Six words: Rob Long: the Wonderland Ranch Years
Unpublished
For now...
Re: Rush on Ricochet
~Paules: I'm just pleased to know that Rush is firmly on the side of the insurgents. I would be flattered if I knew for sure that he read the entire thread and found some of our ideas worth broadcasting to his audience. Ricochet members certainly have nothing to apologize for in terms of intellectual heft. · Sep 16 at 5:56pm
Edited on Sep 16 at 05:58 pm
You're right, ~Paules. This is a fantastic group of thinkers and writers. I'm happy to be among them.
Jul '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
~Paules: I'm just pleased to know that Rush is firmly on the side of the insurgents. I would be flattered if I knew for sure that he read the entire thread and found some of our ideas worth broadcasting to his audience. Ricochet members certainly have nothing to apologize for in terms of intellectual heft. · Sep 16 at 5:56pm
Edited on Sep 16 at 05:58 pm
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
Speak for yourself, pal.
I'm an intellectual Twinkie.
May '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
I frequently check Ricochet before I leave for work. I'm usually stunned when I check again in the evening by the quantity and quality of the conversation that has occurred during the day. This place is amazing.
Sep '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
I'm not really a ditto head, I've often differed with Rush, but (and here is that big but Lileks and Peewee Herman referenced) in this case Rush is right: Murphy needed pounding and he needed it from someone whose hobnails would hurt. That post of Murphy's-- whiny passive aggressive crap, is the sort of weak oh poor me, why won't you morons listen to your betters analysis that makes me crazy. If Murphy and Rove and those cats knew everything how did they lose the majority in 2006? And what is the point of having the majority if it becomes just another group of pigs at the trough?
Jul '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
Amazing, indeed.
I find I almost never go to my old haunts - HotAir, Real Clear Politics,NRO - anymore.
Well....there is Weasel Zippers, but that's for the videos of Jihadi's being blown up by helicopters.
May '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
I hope that applies to Mike too. But either way I'm happy to have him on our side in California where his style and tone have been perfect -- a work of art in fact... I just can't wait for the debates!
Jun '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
Hey, I had a pretty simple comment deleted by the Board. But it was sure fun writing it. Congrats to the men at Powerline for coming forward in an honorable fashion to support O'Donnell...as opposed to Mike Murphy, Karl Rove, and Charles Krauthammer. Their egos are way too big for the dumb mooks who vote. It's really a shame. They want her to lose so they can say, "We told you so." Guess what, they are not my Daddy. As opposed to a number of elections of late, O'Donnell won fair and square. She represents conservative values right down the line. It's time to grow a set and support her..
May '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
Well, we all went through the trenches together. And as we say here at Ricochet: War is Heck.
May '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
A bad week for civility, perhaps, but a great week for memorable lines. EJ has more than his fair share.
May '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
Is that some sort of deep thinking HoHo? Or is my age showing again? Do I need to Google some new, hipper meaning of "Twinkie?"
May '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
Rob - Rush also gave a bit of a defense, too.
"
Now, what is the difference between us and them? A, it's not a game to us, but B, they are numbers crunchers. Both these guys, Murphy and Karl (Rove), deal with 15% to 20% of the electorate. The precious undecideds, independents, whatever you want to call 'em, and they live and breathe in figuring out ways to get those people voting for their candidate. It's not ideological. It's the furthest thing from ideological. It's pure numbers politics.
May '10
Re: Rush on Ricochet
Rush continues, "If you have to have a candidate say he's pro-life when he's not, you do it if that's what it's gonna take. If you have a candidate who doesn't believe in immigration and amnesty, but you need that, "Okay, he's going to allow that he might vote," you do that. That 15 to 20%, that's where they live. Their selling point, the reason they get hired in their minds is to deliver a majority of that 15 to 20%. They're numbers crunchers. They live and breathe in the belief that the rock-ribbed on the left and the rock-ribbed on the right are immovable and they're a given percentage in every election and that the only thing that changes their numbers is turnout."
The rest is here.