🚀 go-pugleaf

RUSH: Yesterday there was a story about David Ignatius, a 
columnist for the Washington Post, who appeared on the Chris 
Matthews Sunday show, the syndicated Chris Matthews weekend talk 
show, and on that show David Ignatius was talking about the 
Misstatement of the Union speech tonight that Obama's gonna 
give. He predicted what Obama would talk about, about jobs and 
guns and immigration. And Ignatius then went on to say that he 
really hopes that Obama doesn't approach it as a zero-sum game 
and destroy Marco Rubio.  Not in the speech tonight, but in the 
whole debate about immigration.

I took that and I ran with it, and I analyzed it quite 
extensively.  And one of the things I pointed out was that it 
was clear to me that Ignatius, as a lone voice, is very much 
aware what the Obama tactic is.  It's not just have your ideas 
triumph, in this case on immigration.  The way Obama's gonna win 
is to destroy the opposition, and that's what the zero-sum game 
definition is for politics.  If somebody wins, somebody has to 
be destroyed, not just lose.  And Ignatius, "Please don't 
destroy Rubio."  I found it profound actually that Ignatius 
would say this.  I went on and on and on about it, we got a 
phone call from Vinny in Queens who accused me of over-thinking 
it.

And he said, "Your vast intellect, Rush, is getting in the way 
of seeing what's obvious.  What Ignatius is worried about is 
that if Obama starts trashing Rubio, that there's gonna be a 
backlash among the Hispanic population at Obama."  And I said, 
with all due respect to Vinny, I said, "I think you're over-
thinking this a bit 'cause Ignatius said what he said.  'I hope 
he doesn't destroy Rubio,' 'cause he knows what Obama's modus 
operandi is."
These guys, some of these people in journalism, when they talk 
about bipartisanship, they really mean it.  To them that's salad 
days.

When Republicans and Democrats are working together, as long as 
the Republicans lose everything, as long as they're talking, as 
long as it's civil, as long as the Democrats let the Republicans 
join the committees and play golf with them, as long as the 
Republicans lose, fine, but they live to talk about it.  But 
Ignatius was clearly expressing discomfort, the idea that Obama 
is literally trying to destroy his opposition.

So today, ladies and gentlemen, I'm holding here my formerly 
nicotine-stained fingers (shuffling paper) a story from the New 
York Times, which, in my overthinking, rings almost the same as 
the David Ignatius comment on Chris Matthews. It's by Jackie 
Calmes. It's headlined "Watching Obama for Signs of Change," and 
it's pretty shocking coming from the New York Times. It sounds 
at times, this story does, like they are worried that Obama 
could just run amok. He could end up just being out of control 
toward (they don't use the word; I will) dictatorship. There are 
parts...

It's not the whole story 'cause halfway through she gathers 
herself and then the story becomes the typical, total 
slobbering, Obama is the greatest thing ever. But in the first 
half of the story, she's very worried here. It's like the way 
Dr. Frankenstein felt after he created his monster. If you are 
familiar with the story, Dr. Frankenstein was very, very worried 
when he saw the monster terrorizing the innocent townspeople, 
and then the monster turned on Dr. Frankenstein. Well, here Dr. 
Frankenstein is the media, and they've created this monster, 
Obama, and Jackie Calmes is, in part of the story, a little 
worried that the monster could kind of get loose and go nuts.

This is not the first time that I've seen questions raised about 
Obama's stability in the mainstream media. Indirectly, but it's 
not the first time. In part, this story reads like a warning to 
Obama and then, as I say, it descends in the last half of it to 
the usual slavish Obama gibberish. I'll give you some examples. 
"On Tuesday night, the president will address the nation and 
Congress on the State of the Union. But many will watch as well 
for signs of the state of Barack Obama. Inside the White House 
and out, advisers and associates have noted subtle but palpable 
changes in Mr. Obama since his re-election.

"'He even carries himself a little bit differently,' said one 
confidant who, like others, asked not to be identified 
discussing the president. He is relaxed, more voluble and even 
more confident than usual, these people say, freer to drop 
profanities or dismiss others' ideas -- enough that even some 
supporters fear the potential for hubris." (laughing) The 
potential? The potential for hubris? Anyway, the point is 
they're seeing it now. Hubris is an out-of-control self-
absorption. Narcissism, self-love, a guy who can't stop looking 
at himself in the mirror because he loves it. They're worried.

So the New York Times people are worried that Obama is getting a 
big head, and he's cussing up a storm and he's just telling 
other people that their ideas of full of it. He's not listening 
to anybody. He's really off on his own. "A man who attended a 
meeting in December between Mr. Obama and business executives 
was struck by the contrast with a tense and perfunctory session 
months before the president was re-elected. 'To say he was a 
different person is too strong, but he was someone who has won a 
second term and isn't going to run again.... This was a relaxed, 
engaged president who very genuinely wanted to connect.'

"As the president prepares to outline his second-term agenda, it 
is clear from these personal accounts as well as his public 
acts, like his bold Inaugural Address, that he has shown an 
assertiveness, self-possession, even cockiness that contrasts 
with the caution, compromise and reserve that he showed for much 
of his first term." They're worried he's out of control, folks. 
They're putting it out there: David Ignatius yesterday, and the 
New York Times today. I'm not over-thinking it. I'm not making 
too much of this. I'm telling you it's out there.

"Watching Obama for Signs of Change," and "signs of the state of 
Barack Obama." They're worried he's out of control, thinks he 
just can't do anything wrong. There are some people that are 
terribly concerned and like, for example, "[W]ill he overreach, 
alienate some Americans and cement the partisan divide he once 
promised to bridge?" Now, of course that's absurd, because, 
yeah, he promised to bridge it, but he gave up on that when the 
first day he was inaugurated 2009. There hasn't been any 
pretense at bridging the partisan divide. He is the divider-in-
chief.

But now they're worried about it, is the point -- and as I say, 
in the last half of the story this all changes, becomes total 
slavish self-devotion and Obama's the greatest thing since 
sliced bread and so forth. [A]mong his remaining aides it is not 
plain who might confront him at any danger signs." Meaning there 
nobody has the guts to say, "Hey, you know what? You're about to 
go off the rails here." I'm telling you, don't make too much of 
it, but it's two days in a row, and I just wanted to point it 
out here, folks.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/02/12/media_fears_they_ve
_created_a_monster

--
Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed 
liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the 
outlaw Obama administration?

No.  Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in 
the back while you are defending yourself, then return a 
controlled rate of aimed fire.  ��

��