XPost: dc.urban-planning, wa.politics   
   From: impeach_obama@yahoo.com   
      
   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,   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)