Thus, my point about things like “geopolitical forces” – what I mean is that OF COURSE there are geopolitical forces at play. Or, of course there is “socio-economic misfortune’ in the world. The problem is that you aren’t intellectual just because you talk about these kinds of things or the myriad other fancy terms people like to talk about.

Rush may polarize. Not sure I care – particularly if I believe he is correct. He is not negotiating anything – it is not his role. He simply expresses opinion. It is his role to discuss ideas, which he does every day for 3 hours. And I think he one of only a handful of people who are focused on the right things right now… and that is defeating Obama’s agenda, standing up for freedom and reminding America what made this the greatest nation on earth.

I think Rush polarizes, from the use of “feminazis” to his claims that Col. Powell primarily supported Obama because of race (as opposed to numerous other political reasons). I agree that some of this can be entertaining (such as the “talent on loan from God”), but entertainment isn’t exactly a logical or even intellectual argument. I do not look to entertainers (throw in Bill Maher, Bill O’Reilly, or Comedy Central) for political analysis. Millions also love McDonalds, but it does not mean it is nourishment.

I definitely agree with we should focus on good ideas, but if we don’t ask why someone believes something, then there isn’t really a debate other than “I’m right, you’re wrong”…

And even where lenders weren’t “coerced” by the loosening of lending standards championed by Fannie, Freddie, and the left, these loosened standards sure provided the regulatory cover for financial institutions to bet on the housing market (via what were then deemed to be juicy interest rate spreads.) Putting on the juicy spread trade worked well in the early 2000s as housing prices increased. That is, until this left-advocated position went to hell after the affordable housing price bubble burst.

You state that “a fundamental principle” is not fiscal conservatism but rather something like “trying to create the greatest good for as many people as possible.” OK – while I don’t necessarily accept that on its face – let me just assume it for a moment.

I believe that freedom is essential to creating the greatest good for as many people as possible. I believe that personal responsibility is essential. I believe that Faith in God is essential. So, I go about life trying to promote those things.

The point of this post was to suggest – perhaps more respectfully than came across – that this notion that there is a group of conservatives, including talk radio hosts, who shun the intellectuals of the movement is just plain false, and is arrogant in its premise. It is suggesting that Rush is not an intellectual, or that those who espouse their fundamental beliefs in liberty, personal responsibility, Faith and basic freedom are somehow misguided dolts who are not factoring in the “complicated layers of socio-economic misfortune, economic realities and geopolitical forces at play” or some such nonsense that is best found in study groups at Harvard.

Alan Greenspan is a smart guy. Alan Greenspan has done a lot of great things. Alan Greenspan may very well have more to do with the current financial mess we are in than anyone else. He may not. Different people have different views… but it is fair to say that the absurdly low interest rates that we “enjoyed” for such a long time are at least one sizable part of the very big problem we have today. So if he is suggesting that “free market principles have failed,” then I would simply take issue with that characterization.

We need to start focusing simply on good ideas and stop worrying about who thinks what and why. I want people to actually listen to Rush and tell me what, specifically, they disagree with. Not his use of feminazi or “talent on loan from God,” and other tools he uses for entertainment. You either enjoy that or you don’t. Millions do. But tell me what – very specifically – he is standing for that you disagree with, and why. Seriously… have a real debate…

While some folks may prefer a more “naive” approach, this runs the danger of being purely ideological as opposed to being rooted in sound arguments. Fiscal conservatism is not a “fundamental principle” (trying to create the greatest good for as many people as possible is) and when radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh spout things that this should be blindly accepted, it is simply preaching to the choir and not doing the GOP any good.

I think it s a time for some real soul searching. While a number of things caused the economic woes we’re in now, we do have Greenspan basically stating that free market principles failed and people without regulation won’t necessarily do things to sustain themselves.

Some excerpts:

If theft from the rich and alms for the poor are held—by themselves, out of context—to be the moral good, then the resulting moral standard is hostile to wealth and success while encouraging misery and failure.

The idea of “stealing from the rich” omits the question of how the riches were obtained. It does not differentiate between wealth obtained by force and fraud and wealth produced by man’s individual effort.

If the productive are regarded as evil, it is not only the most brilliant productive minds who suffer: each man suffers according to the benefit he could have received from each producer.

Under such a system, neediness becomes an ideal, because the only way man can serve his interests is by not having earned that which he requires to survive. Therefore, one lives by dying.

In punishing the productive and rewarding those who fail to be productive, the symbol of Robin Hood stands in direct opposition to the proper ideal of justice.

The category of “the rich” necessarily includes the productive men whose work enhances each man’s ability to live. To deal with these thinking individuals with physical force is to undercut the source of life. Danneskjöld, through his role as a “reverse Robin Hood,” returns life to those who are capable of living it.

RUSH: Yes, ma’am. I agree a hundred percent. All right, here comes the Barney Frank sound bite. Thanks very much, Joanne. I appreciate it. Last night on Chris Matthews’ show, Barney Frank was the guest and Chris Matthews said, “What do you make of this big shift away from Bushism, if you will? Away from tax cuts, from people who make certain amount of money — and to begin a health fund, you know, national health care? What do you make of the big shift back to all this?”

FRANK: I think it’s what people voted for. There was no secret that this was going to happen. John McCain kept predicting that if Obama won, this would happen, and I think Obama felt an obligation to make an honest man out of John McCain — or to keep him honest. One John’s always been pretty honest. Of course the private sector is the engine to create wealth. But we also know, as Franklin Roosevelt knew and as others have known, that the private sector works best when it’s got a set of rules and a cooperative set of arrangements with the public sector.

RUSH: So during the campaign, remember now, the Democrats said that we –McCain, Joe the Plumber, we — were crazy for warning that Obama was a socialist! Now Barney Frank says everybody knew it? Everybody knew this was going to happen? I did! I guarantee you that a majority of people that voted for the Bamster did not know this was going to happen. He was talking tax cuts. He wasn’t talking about this. He was talking about lowering the sea levels four feet. He wasn’t talking all this detailed, massive spending. I “disagwee” with Mr. “Fwank” on this, folks.

Yeah, sure, there are a few of them, like Byron York, and possibly Bill Sammon, who may actually be our friends.

But most of them aren’t, and should be ignored somewhere between most and all of the time.