Limbaugh over the line

In a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed – Rush Limbaugh: Liberals and the Violence Card – Rush Limbaugh was justifiably fierce in his response to the recent left-liberal anti-Tea Party offensive.  He was particularly scathing in regard to Bill Clinton, who in a recent speech and op-ed left the distinct impression, without ever quite saying so, that Tea Party sentiment equated with incitement to new Timothy McVeighs.  Limbaugh called Clinton’s past indictments of talk radio “slander,” and accused the left of advancing a transparent double standard – exhibiting no discomfort when leftists take to the streets in often violent protest against conservative governments and capitalism, but shrieking like frightened little children when someone from the right dares to speak up.

So far so good.

Yet here’s how Limbaugh closes his op-ed, when singing the praises of the “clear majority of the American people” who, according to him, oppose the “Obama way”:

They are motivated by love. Not hate, not sedition. They love their country and want to save it from those who do not.

How is Limbaugh doing anything categorically different from what he accuses Bill Clinton of doing?  It’s not as though this was an op-ed about foreign policy.  It was all about domestic politics.  So who is supposed to be endangering the country?  Who is it who doesn’t, according to Rush, love the country?

He is leaving the distinct impression, not just coming close to saying but pretty much saying, that the Obama Administration and its supporters do not love the United States of America, and are seeking to destroy it.  The clear implication is that the liberal left are engaging in treason.  They’re not fellow Americans any longer, but enemy invaders.

This isn’t some cherry-picked, decontextualized offhand remark from 15 hours/week of entertaining and engaging live radio.  It’s the conclusion of a written op-ed.  And in a few sentences it defeats Limbaugh’s entire purpose, of putting himself and people like him on a higher, more positive, more grown-up and also more truly American, dissent- and debate-friendly plane than those on the other side.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

69 comments on “Limbaugh over the line

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. You don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis, do you?

    If you did, you wouldn’t be so shocked by his statement regarding the Administration’s contempt for this country. The administration believes a culture of a free people minding and doing their own business is corrupt and that capitalism is unjust. Limbaugh says this at least once during his show, every day.

    And, he’s right.

  2. @ David:
    At times I’ve listened to Limbaugh on a regular basis.

    There’s a difference between having a different vision for this country and hating and seeking to destroy the country – which is also the difference between a political opponent in the American tradition, and an enemy that needs to be destroyed, that it would be dishonorable and a form of treason not to seek to destroy. The sense that Limbaugh is not always aware of the difference is part of the reason that I don’t listen to him more often.

  3. I think code words are the key to this dispute. IN MY OPINION,Obama was elected to push our Government CLOSER to the West European model of Social Democracy,but that cannot actually be expressed by a Liberal Politician in America for obvious reasons,so the mandate remains subliminal.
    The question that is interesting to me is that kind of pushing for Social Democracy: unconstitutional,illegal,treasonous???

    I am linking Jonah Goldberg’s piece from Commentary today. “What kind of a Socialist is Barack Obama?” Easy Answer,he’s similiar to the kind found in Western European Democracies. It seemed Goldberg was not as comfortable with this subject as he usually is with his Liberal Fascism umbrella.”But is it correct, as an objective matter, to call Obama’s agenda “socialist”? That depends on what one means by socialism.” Okay Jonah,–15421

  4. I am hard at work when Rush’s show is on, but I do not miss the pompous self aggrandizing rubbish which often dilutes the power of his message. Luckily, Beck’s TV show comes on when I am free from the constraints of my work. Both can be a little clownish at times, but why object to two powerful (and of course flawed) personalities who are speaking truth to power and have people listening to them every day, day after day. I just hope they have good bodyguards.

    Jennifer Rubin points to a similar theme when she tackles the mild mannered and self described New York Times “centrist,” Zoltan’s favorite mushey mouth, David Brooks.

    Brooks fails to notice a telling quality of The Obami, which makes them far more dangerous than most European Social Democrats. Their animus shows and smells to high heaven like homeless underwear. They ooze a great deal of hatred and anger and it comes pouring out as they sprint to the nearest crapper too late. Mister Peanut’s arrogant State of The Union was full of such arrogance and anger. So is his constant call to his base to “get in their face.” You can see the same seething anger in his most trusted 0bami like the almost white Valerian Jarrett, and in the words of Van Jones, “Give them THE WEALTH,” and in Anita
    Dunn’s infamous and far too late to retract and far too telling words of praise for the pathological mass murderer, Mao Tse Tung.

    Do not forget too quickly the preacher, Jeremiah Wright, and the hatred and hostility he vomited out on a weekly basis to the assembled 0bama Family. And, Billy Ayers probably did ghost write Mr Peanut’s second best seller. A brief look at the rage he and his little wifey, Bernitdown Dhorn, spout in their writings display an unnatural level of hatred. They really do feel entitled to get what they want by any means necessary. I know this type all too well, my frems.

    It is there, like a boil leaking pus all over their faces. We ignore it at our own peril, my frems.

  5. It is there, like a boil leaking pus all over their faces. We ignore it at our own peril, my frems.

    What you saying is they hate what you love,and you hate what they love,and you all hate each other. Where’s this going in the “Real” world that we all live in?

  6. I am just calling it like I see it, Rex.

    Brooks wants to put lipstick on the pig, or he wants to pretend the pig is Nicole Kidman.

    I see the pig. I think voters need to understand that they did not vote for Nicole, they voted for Mister Oink, and I think both Rush and Glenn help to remind them of this so they do not made the same mistake twice.

  7. #5 wrote
    smells/homeless underwear.
    pouring out/crapper
    arrogance and anger.
    seething anger
    hatred and hostility he vomited
    rage/level of hatred.
    boil leaking pus

    #7 wrote:pig/oink

    Is Obama a smelly,angry,vomiting,crappy,puss filled pig,or a nice 4h raised pig that goes to country fairs like Wilbur?

  8. The David Brooks of the world would like to project onto Mister Peanut what they think they would like a President to be.

    However, De Nile is the longest river in Africa, and you can be sure Barry ain’t who he said he was during the election and he isn’t who Natalie Rosenberg hoped he would be when she hosted a $10,000 a head party in his honor in Highland Park, il.

    He’s the guy who sat in that pew, soaking up all of that foul hatred week after week for 10 long years.

    Project and deny all you want, Rex.

  9. Gosh, these endless circular arguments can get tiresome. At least the last several days, I’ve heard Beck invoke Ghandi several times, and he even says he prays when he gets too mad about what’s going on.

    I will repeat until the cows come home that many of these entitled people would stop at nothing, even more would stop at very little to foist their utopia upon us. Isn’t that what Saul Alinsky taught them, that the ends justify the means? They have no compunction at calling people with African American grandchildren racists, stuffing ballot boxes and infiltrating trouble makers into tea party events. The dismissed Panther case, and several SEIU beatdowns are early indications of what many of them can will do as election season approaches.

    SS and LF are totally correct on this, my frems. Our vision is constantly clouded by our projections, and, ha ha to those of you who think our opponents are simply polite idealists who want Fourstring’s friends to get nicer government issued undies and free baths at the Holiday Inn every other day.

    I can not help it if Limbaugh and Beck are on to something some of you would rather deny.

  10. Zolt, you go on thinking that liberals or progressives or whatever are all lovers of thugs or opponents of republican government and keep thinking that the rest of the country lacks the capacity to distinguish between Rev Wright and a hole in the wall.
    You go right on thinking that your opponent are demonic hellspawn and not people whose politics differ from yours by degrees rather than universes.

    Any continue thinking that everyone else denies reality.

  11. @ fuster:Do you think Barry & Michelle had the capacity to distinguish between Wright and a hole in the wall? And for TEN frigging years?? Hello??

    Why did Barry suddenly become Barracks at Columbia? Was it to get some cred with all the wunnerful white pwogwessives?

    How about changing your name?

    Che Fuster?

  12. Twenty years, Zolt, but then again how often do you find a Quaddafi and Farrakhan phile as your preacher, who you trust to preside over your wedding, to have your kids follow his teachings, nothing could
    go wrong there

  13. Ya Know, Senior Narciso, I think they would like to go back to the me too, polite Republican politicians like the feckless McCain, Dole and Bush I, who were too polite to bother winning.

  14. “They are motivated by love. Not hate, not sedition. They love their country and want to save it from those who do not.”

    Is Limbaugh *that* far off with this assessment? I get the impression that Obama would be happier with citizenship to the Global Community Of Humans than to the United States. What politician actually *removes* his USA flag pin? I have no problem with anyone not wearing a USA pin. But to wear one, remove it, then wear it again after public pressure became too much? And you’re running for President? It’s almost an unthinkable act for a high profile politician. Why would he do such a thing? One has to wonder the motivation.

    I feel like Obama is far more sincere when he is apologizing for or denigrating America than he is when he’s praising it (praise being a political necessity). He has hired several people in his administration who share his same views. His wife wasn’t proud of her country until her husband was the Dem nominee for Prez.

    The Founders created this country to be distinctly different from the Europe from whence they came. To have a degree of liberty that no other country in the world had. But now Obama, despite allegedly being a constitutional scholar, is trying curtail that liberty by implementing a statist “utopia.” Just like they have in the same Europe that our Founders broke away from 200+ years ago. He’s backed by the likes of Pelosi and Reid and almost all of the heavy hitters in the D party.

    Does Obama and several of his cohorts who run the show love their country? I’m not so sure. I get the feeling that they are more embarrassed by it than they love it. They feel that America needs to decline and become less (benignly) hegemonic as some sort of “corrective” in my opinion.

    Note, Rush didn’t say that these people “hated” America. He said that they didn’t love it. To be honest, I’m having a hard time disagreeing with that statement. Is that too incendiary a statement that it harms the conservative movement more than it helps it? I’m not sure. However, with all the vile demagoguery from major figures of the left directed towards GWB, conservatives, Tea Parties, etc…, I for one am not going to fault Rush for this relatively mild statement. I’m a little tired of conservatives having to defend themselves from spurious accusations (racist! homophobic! anti-immigrant!) and wouldn’t mind putting liberals on the rhetorical defensive for once.

  15. Ritchie Emmons wrote:

    Is Limbaugh *that* far off with this assessment?

    Just far enough to have said something that, if there’s any doubt about it, it must be left unsaid for a civil, democratic conversation to proceed in good faith.

    It’s similar to the notion of presumption of innocence in criminal matters. Even people whom we believe to be guilty are entitled to the presumption – as much for our sake and for the sake of all the others, as for the sake of the defendant.

    I won’t speculate about Bill Clinton, but I suspect he’s right up to a point that an atmosphere of expressly anti-government ferment encourages the McVeighs of the world – which isn’t the same as saying talk radio or any particular set of talkers are implicated in the OKC bombing. Even if they were, I could accept it as a price worth paying for a free society, and trivial compared to the price of unfreedom.

    We cannot have a country worth living in, or at all, unless people who disagree resolve their differences peacefully. A rhetoric that implies otherwise is faulty rhetoric in a democratic society, whether from the right or the left, regardless of who’s guilty of more of it. Since most people are deaf to their own rhetoric and blind to their own ideology, we also have to begin with the presumption that, though we may hear in the exchange of insults between the two sides a ratio of 5 or 10 or 100 to 1 of their infractions compared to ours, they very likely hear the opposite ratio.

    It’s obvious, for instance, that the defenders of Rush and Beck hear “truth,” not insults. The defenders of Obama or others on the left hear a different truth – the “truth” that all of those crazy nutballs on the right want them dead, or gone, or destroyed.

    It’s all pretty darn sick, though not really very far out of the ordinary.

    (Welcome to ZC, btw, Ritchie. I’ve seen you contributing at JED’s blog, and of course remember you from Contentions. I’m glad you joined the rest of us…

  16. Because that is what the professors, the journalists, the popular culture teaches them, despite the fact the fact most of these spokesman, are filthy stinkin’ rich, cognitive dissonance, it’s a reinforcement loop, that is very strong call it epistemological
    blindness, other terms are less kind.