Author Topic: Ignatius Begs Obama: Spare Rubio  (Read 369 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,975
Ignatius Begs Obama: Spare Rubio
« on: February 11, 2013, 04:02:38 PM »

Ignatius Begs Obama: Spare Rubio
February 11, 2013


RUSH: A most amazing thing, to me, anyway.  This may not be that big a deal to you, but to me it is.  I found this on Newsbusters.  I didn't actually see this.  Chris Matthews has a syndicated show that runs on Sundays throughout the country.  This is not his nightly MSNBC tingle-up-the-leg show.  And on his show yesterday was Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who literally begged Obama, implored Obama not to destroy Marco Rubio in the upcoming immigration debate.

I think this is a tantamount admission to what's going on.  I have alerted you and anybody who will listen that what the objective is at the White House is the annihilation of the Republican Party, the elimination of all viable opposition, and on a personal level.  You know, not just to annihilate Republican Party/conservative ideas, but also people, the people who carry them, the people who believe in them.  And this is a tantamount admission that I, El Rushbo, was right about it.

Chris Matthews said, "Marco Rubio's been designated as the Republican respondent. Pretty smart guy. He's Cuban-American. He's talked on the immigration issue.  Will the president stick it to him and say, 'I'm gonna be good on immigration, you guys are gonna have to handle the issue.'?" And David Ignatius said, "I think that he's gonna make immigration one of the issues he talks about in the State of the Union --" and he will, meaning Obama, immigration, gay rights. I'll tell you in advance what it's gonna be.

The inauguration speech of Obama was a left-wing manifesto, and it's not reported as such because the media does not consider that anything to be abnormal or shocking or out of the mainstream. But taken by itself, his inauguration speech was as big a left-wing manifesto as you'll find anywhere, and more of the same is coming our way in the State of the Union show.  And whatever the issues are, whatever he talks about, it's gonna be presented from an uber-left-wing perspective.  And Ignatius said, "I think he's gonna make immigration one of the issues he talks about.  The State of the Union's okay, it's good, but here are the things we need to do."  It's what he's gonna say. Gonna talk about immigration reform, gonna talk about climate change.


RUSH: Now back to David Ignatius on the Chris Matthews weekend show on Sunday talking about Marco Rubio. He says, "He’s going to talk about immigration reform," in the State of the Union. "He's going to talk about climate change. He's going to certainly talk about bringing the troops home from the wars. I think he'll announce the number of troops that will be withdrawn. But, you know, the Marco Rubio question gets to whether Obama can get out of the zero-sum game Washington where to do something good on immigration reform, he's got to, you know, destroy Marco Rubio who is the Republican symbol of progress on that.

"And I'm looking to see whether he can lift his game beyond where he was in his inaugural address and really speak to the country, really speak to the people who didn't vote for him, as well as the people who did and have a platform for really doing something." So here we have, quite by accident, a member of the State-Controlled Media openly admitting about what Obama is doing, admitting that the inaugural address was a left-wing manifesto and worrying what it means for the country if the State of the Union is the same things. He's openly asking: Can Obama accomplish anything without destroying somebody?

Meaning: Can Obama behave in such a way that his ideas will triumph, or can he only get what he wants by destroying his opponents? Well, you and I know the answer to that. Obama can't sell his ideas. He doesn't even try. The entire Obama MO -- and it's been this way since Obama got into politics in Illinois as a state senator -- has been to clear the playing field, not level it. This is why I have been imploring people to understand (particularly Republicans) that what they face is not just a president, but an entire Democrat Party which has as it is objective to eliminate all viable opposition, but not do so on the strength of their ideas -- which they can't do, by the way.

Their ideas do not sell, and that's why Obama doesn't try to sell them. That's specifically why Obama has to destroy the credibility and the reputation of his political opponents. It's what they did to Romney. You know it and I know it and everybody else who's paying attention knows it. Romney knows it. They just didn't respond to it in the Romney campaign theoretically because they didn't have any money at the time the Obama attacking was taking place via all those TV ads. Even today Stephanie Cutter, the Obama campaign babe, is still out there saying (summarized), "Oh, yeah. Romney's a felon! Damn right. I'm not ashamed of it. He was a felon then and he's a felon now."

They're still saying it because they're still in campaign mode. So their MO is literally to destroy their opposition and win in that way because their ideas do not triumph. And Ignatius here is practically admitting it. "The question gets to whether Obama can get out of the zero-sum game in Washington where to do something good on immigration reform he has to destroy Rubio, who is the Republican symbol of progress on that." Zero-sum game means... In terms of economics, if you believe in a zero-sum game, you think that there's a infinite amount of money. For example, if somebody gets a raise of $10,000 a year, somebody has to lose it. You do not believe that the pie can grow.

Well, what Ignatius is saying here is that Obama believes in the zero-sum game business in politics; that if somebody like Marco Rubio draws rave reviews and accolades, it means bad things for Obama. Obama cannot exist with his enemies being praised. Obama cannot exist with his political opponents also getting positive reviews. Zero-sum game. So what Obama has to do is make sure that none of his opponents get rave reviews or even approving comments. So he has to take them out, and Ignatius is openly hoping that Obama won't do that in this case, that he'll try for his immigration reform ideas on the strength of his ideas and not do it by destroying Rubio.

I'm going to tell you something, folks. This is a Washington Post columnist, David Ignatius. For him to be saying this... I don't care what show it is. For him to be saying this means that there is -- and it's probably got a very faint heartbeat, and I'm not trying to attach too much weight to this at all. But what it means is that even within the bowels of the liberal Democrat power base, there is some huge discomfort with the way Obama's operating. It's a faint heartbeat and don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying there's an open revolt against Obama. Nothing like that. Do not put emphasis on this that I'm not adding myself.

Again, I think this book that I told you about has some profundities in it, the Antifragile book by Nassim Taleb. I think what Ignatius said on Matthews is important. He mighta said it as just throw-away, but I think there are strains of profundity in it because of what he's admitting. He's admitting it. He's basically admitting it. They want Obama to persuade. These guys believe in the ideology. They believe in the superiority of liberalism or progressivism, and they want Obama to win on that basis. They want the idea to triumph. They want that to be what everybody's supports. They're purists.

They want to be winning because you become a liberal. They want to be winning because you accept progressivism. They don't want to be winning simply because Obama wipes out the opposition. They want you converted, and Obama's not converting you. He's ignoring you if you don't agree. He's taking out all of your leaders if he doesn't agree with you. But he's not building anything. He's tearing everything apart, tearing things down. That's what Ignatius is saying. He may not even realize it. And, again, don't infer something I'm not saying. I'm not saying there's something to build on here. To me, this is just one of my little observations.

more at:

"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"If you want to change the world, go home and love your family".    ...Mother Teresa

"It's not the mountain before you, but the pebble in your shoe"      ....or something like that

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo