RUSH AND RACE: THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY
Face it, my fellow conservatives. We just don’t have what it takes to play the race card effectively.
This was amply proven by that ample talk show host, cotton candy conservative, and pop righty Rush Limbaugh who took a story about a beating of a white nerd by black bullies on a school bus and tried to turn it into a spiel involving dire portents of a coming race war enabled by our president:
RUSH: Hey, look, folks, the white kid on that bus in Belleville, Illinois, he deserved to be beat up. You don’t know about this story? Oh, there’s video of this. The school bus filled with mostly black students beat up a white student a couple of times with all the black students cheering. Of course the white student on the bus deserved the beating. He was born a racist. That’s what Newsweek magazine told us in its most recent cover. It’s Obama’s America, is it not? Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, “Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,” and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he’s white. Newsweek magazine told us this. We know that white students are destroying civility on buses, white students destroying civility in classrooms all over America, white congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives.
We can redistribute students while we redistribute their parents’ wealth. We can redistribute everything. Just return the white students to their rightful place, their own bus with bars on the windows and armed guards. They’re racists. They get what they deserve. Newsweek magazine told us this, post-racial America. I wonder if Obama is going to come to the defense the assailants the way he did his friend Skip Gates up there at Harvard. I mean the assailants are presumed innocent due to the white racism we all know runs rampant in America. The Drive-By Media is ginning up all this criticism of Obama. Again today it’s all based in racism, the criticism of Obama’s health care plan or whatever, it’s all based in racism and so, if he’s going to apologize for America, Obama needs to apologize for the right reasons. White Americans are racists who have created what they call free markets that really just enslave the rest of America and her trading partners. It was white Americans that ran off Van Jones.
The amount of hyperbole in that snippet could fill the Superdome. There are so many straw men set up by Limbaugh (make sure you read the rest of this priceless rant), that one would think he was holding open auditions for the part of the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz.. Outright falsehoods, gross and unfair exaggerations, and the preposterous notion that Obama is responsible makes this sarcastic, bombastic, idiotic nonsense the reason that thinking people should not listen to Rush Limbaugh - ever. He makes my head hurt and my bowels churn when he takes off like this.
Yeah…but is it racist?
Sorry, no. The effect, however, as Ron Dreher points out, is bad enough:
It’s undeniably true that black males, as a group, are disproportionately responsible for violent crimes today (and blacks are disproportionately victims, too). This is important to talk about. This means something. I hate the kind of political correctness that demands we pretend not to see what we see. But as far as I’m concerned, if the Limbaughs of the world are going to be doing this kind of thing, and trying to blame, with no logical grounds whatsoever, a black president for black-on-white violence, and if they’re going to do this in an increasingly hysterical atmosphere of protest against that black president, I don’t want to talk about these things at all. Now is not the time. With this kind of inflammatory rhetoric, they are quite simply tearing the country apart.
Where do they think this is going to go?
I think Dreher overreacts a little but his point is well made. I am not convinced that the “hysterical atmosphere of protest” against the president is increasing. Seems about the same to me as it was a few months ago. I think some of the opposition is irrational but I would not refer to it as “hysterical.”
But am I reading too much into Limbaugh’s rant by thinking he is talking about some kind of race war being started by Blacks? I think not. It seems that Limbaugh believes that this one incident that police now say did not have any racial overtones (and the video proves that) is the start of a pogrom against white school children - or something. Is he joking when he says,”You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering,…?”
What is the purpose of this out of control, hyperbolic, loony charge?
Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Hannity, Savage - they’re all jousting for attention. This leads to a syndrome that begs the question, “How can you top ‘over the top?”
I wrote about it when examining something outrageous Ann Coulter said a few years ago:
In the end, this is Coulter’s dilemma. And the great trap she has set for herself as she has climbed the ladder of success to achieve fame and fortune. In this celebrity, media soaked age where the ravenous appetites of the news nets, “lifestyle” shows, and political talk radio are constantly demanding more and more controversy, more and more outrageous personalities to fill the time and attract more audience, the danger for any one personality like Coulter is that yesterday’s jaw droppers and head shakers can’t be repeated. She must come up with entirely new derogatory sobriquets to call her political opponents and ever more outrageous metaphors to describe her political pet peeves. By definition, she must go “over the top” on nearly a daily basis.
Limbaugh is an expert at “over the top.” He knows full well rants like the one above will draw enormous criticism on the left and Huzzahs! on the right. He is no dummy. He is a seasoned entertainer who has been hawking his wares on radio for a quarter of a century. His planned rhetorical bombs are set to go off and splatter all over the media landscape generating controversy, noteriety, and ultimately, higher ad rates.
It doesn’t matter to him who gets hurt or what emotions he stirs in his 15-20 million daily listeners. All he wants is to get their heads nodding in agreement as he plays to their emotions while deliberately failing to engage their minds. For if his listeners paused in mid-Rush-rant to think about what he was saying - I mean truly examine his thesis, his arguments, and his logic, they would understand that Limbaugh, at bottom, is nothing but a clown. A clever, articulate, experienced clown - but a clown nonetheless.
Already Mr. Limbaugh’s behavior is raising the ire of folks who already dislike him, but this transgression against honesty and prudence is so obvious and grave that his audience members should take it upon themselves to contact the talk radio host, politely articulate why his commentary in this instance is so irresponsible, and request that he never engage in such behavior again. It is Mr. Limbaugh’s listeners who have the most pull here. Those who say nothing, and continue tuning into this kind of rhetoric, share partial responsibility for worsening the country in which they live, though the bulk of responsibility will always reside with the millionaire race agitator himself.
A racist clown? I refuse to toss that epithet about as casually as the left. “Race agitator” sounds about right. But what Conor Friedersdorf suggests is unrealistic. Those who have tired of having their emotions manipulated by Mr. Limbaugh have long since stopped listening to him and have seen through the bombast, the sneering put downs that passes for humor among many on the right, and the bilious sarcasm that drips so often, and so expertly from his lips.
I will go to my grave wondering how in God’s name so many people who think themselves “conservative” can find anything of value by listening to such a pompous lout.
I hear Hell is freezing over this weekend.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 9/16/2009 @ 11:24 am
No, it couldn’t be racist because conservatives are professionally blind to racism. Can’t see it, can’t hear it. Used to have some racism around here but it all went away one magical day. Poof! All gone.
You know why you never see racism, Rick? Because without racists the GOP is about half the size it is right now. Your party needs racists.
Do you think it’s a coincidence the GOP is 99.9% white? And southern? And old?
So you’ll walk right up to the edge of it and then step back. The truth is too poisonous for you to admit. You want to, you need to for your own self-respect, but you just . . . can’t.
Comment by michael reynolds — 9/16/2009 @ 11:27 am
Michael: That’s probably a road the Democrats don’t want to go down politically. There are racists in the Republican party, but half? Come on. It’s possible to disagree with Obama because of his policies rather than his race. The harder you draw the lines between the parties, the less is going to get done. Get on board with the pres and let the adults talk.
Comment by Joemoke — 9/16/2009 @ 11:31 am
If you go back 16 years and listen to Limbaugh tapes from the first year of the Clinton era, the ideology is the same, but the touch is much lighter — more updates, song parodies, etc. Which is why be became so successful. There were conservative radio talkers in the business dating all the way back to the 1960s, but they were mostly local and had too hard an edge to really break out at a national level.
The Rush Limbaugh of 2009 channels is inner Mark Levin too much (while Levin cops his schtick off Bob Grant’s personna for years at WMCA and WABC in New York). In a mature market like conservative talk radio is now, as compared to the early 1990s, the angrier attitude works with the listeners you’ve got, and the actions taken by Obama over the past nine months have helped Rush regain some of the listeners he lost during the Bush years. But it also makes it easier for liberals to use his words against him than it was back in the early Clinton years, when the more satyrical pokes at liberals were harder to turn back against him.
Comment by John — 9/16/2009 @ 12:03 pm
Let’s just leave out percentages. I mean can someone be 5% racist, where do you start? Everyone is prejudiced to some degree but constant reinforcement can make someone racist. Rush is definitely adding fuel to the flames and he knows it. This whole we white men are victims and under siege spiel. IMHO, that is pathetic whining. Does that appeal only to Republicans? Certainly not, there are a lot of Democrats who susceptible to this kind of demagoguery too. I’m kind of with the crunchy con, now is not the best time to ‘tackle’ these issues.
Comment by funny man — 9/16/2009 @ 12:04 pm
Limbaugh’s outburst would be a yawner in Democratic circles. The rule of law, the 3 branches of the government and economy are rapidly are under assault and thoughtful members of the right are debating Marquis of Queensberry rules. Get a grip it is not as if Limbaugh is a czar with broad and sweeping input into the policies of the administration.
Comment by Brad — 9/16/2009 @ 12:24 pm
Sorry Rick, but this piece wasn’t outrageous and over the top enough. I was forced to stop reading your blog and read the Rush transcripts instead.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 9/16/2009 @ 1:14 pm
Could you amplify a bit on the difference between a “racist” and a “race agitator?”
Thank you in advance.
I don’t think Limbaugh is a hater - or I lack the ability to read his mind. Rather, in the same vein as Al Sharpton, he is a calculating race agitator - stirring the pot for his own aggrandizement.
Racially insensitive? Perhaps. Racist - don’t think so. I think its time for thoughtful people to reclaim the strict meaning of that word and apply it where it is truly deserved. The way it is being tossed about today cheapens it and causes it to lose its sting.
ed.
Comment by shaun — 9/16/2009 @ 2:19 pm
I more or less agree, Rick, especially the cheapening part. Thank you.
Comment by shaun — 9/16/2009 @ 2:36 pm
Serious situation.
In other news, the deficit tops $10,000,000,000.00.
Comment by jackson1234 — 9/16/2009 @ 2:49 pm
Welcome back Michael Renyolds, long time no see!
Heh - don’t encourage him.
ed.
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 9/16/2009 @ 3:19 pm
I’m amazed that you can’t see the obvious sarcasm that Limbaugh delivered. I recall an article by you several weeks ago in which you were pissed that some commenters didn’t get your sarcasm. How can you not see this in Rush’s statement.
Rush is trying to display a point. Had this been 10 whites against 1 black, everyone in the media would be screaming racism (even if the lone black had a gun and was threatening to shoot). So, Rush puts this incident up for all to see and asks the question, “why isn’t this racism?” Its a valid point. But the point is towards the media and their reactions and not the event itself.
Sarcasm. Can’t you see it in others when you can deliver so well yourself?
Comment by John Galt — 9/16/2009 @ 3:19 pm
Next thing you know, Rush will be featuring A Worst Person in the World, forging documents and passing them off as “proof,” calling for assassinations of political opponents, and claiming the voting machines were rigged.
Rush’s sarcasm when right over your head, but then again, if the racial roles had been reversed you would have been navel-gazing and wondering how talk radio caused such racism.
Jesus.
Comment by obamathered — 9/16/2009 @ 4:04 pm
Envy, thy name is Moran.
For a blogger that ‘blegs’ to his readers for money (unlike RL), and who seems oblivious to RL’s time-honored tradition of ‘illustrations of absurdity by being absurd’ — your current appeal to moderation here, coupled with your careless disregard for your own volatile brand sarcasm is, in this case, unsuccessful.
And, is that your brother Terry Moran involved indefensible APOLOGY to dumB.O for his ‘jackass’ moment?
Comment by Niccolò Pericolo — 9/16/2009 @ 7:06 pm
ETA: And, is that your brother Terry Moran involved [in ABC's] indefensible APOLOGY to dumB.O. for his ‘jackass’ moment?
Comment by Niccolò Pericolo — 9/16/2009 @ 7:09 pm
Niccolo,
are you responsible for the action of your uncle? That’s cheap. Oh no, it is the time honored tradition of sarcasm.
Liberals and conservatives are often so predictable it is outright boring! Yeah, like who is more of a hypocrite especially when it comes to race.
Comment by funny man — 9/16/2009 @ 8:04 pm
Does anyone bother to take Moran seriously as a conservative? He’s not even convincing when he plays one on radio!
As Nicolo astutely noted, Moran is quite jealous that someone like Rush pulls down notoriety, respect and a cool $20 million each year form his bravado version of entertainment mixed with keen insight, something Moran wishs he could emulate!
After spending a short time here, I’m convinced Moran is just a countryclub Pubbie with a tiny libertarian streak, with a small intellect to match.
Rush: “Say G’Night, Rick.” Rick: “G’night Rick!
Comment by Earl T — 9/16/2009 @ 8:32 pm
Earl T said:
I do.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 9/16/2009 @ 8:54 pm
Chuck Tucson,
I do too
Comment by funny man — 9/16/2009 @ 9:06 pm
“The amount of hyperbole in that snippet could fill the Superdome.”
Nope. Satire. Sarcasm. Ring a bell? You dont think 30+ years of political correctness crushing rightful debate and dissent isnt worthy of such treatment? There was a ritual beating up of Congressman Joe Wilson for doing something tamer than most members of the Democrat caucus did in 2005, and racism was
Rush is a lout for daring to tap dance on the third rail of racial identity politics and expose this hypocritical ‘race card’ politics in his own way?
Rush uses the liberal media narrative as a way to interpret an event (blacks beating up whites on a bus) to show how ABSURD that liberal media narrative is. He has even called it as much:
“illustrate absurdity by being absurd” Of course neither he nor any liberal believes that there was a race riot on a school bus. But he knows perfectly well the double-standard the liberals play.
“deliberately failing to engage their minds”
On a week when a former President Carter is calling criticism of a President ‘racism’, when the race card is played by a corrupt organization (ACORN) found to have engaged in agreeing to illegal activities, when the ‘race’ epithet is thrown around more now in Obama-America than ever before… it’s about time someone called out this Jackass Behavior for what it is.
It is vile, outrageous, and despicable to call conservatives ‘racists’ for daring to criticize Obama. That vile, outrageous and despicable behavior - by folks like former President Carter - deserves a response … you want it to be prudent … you can go the Michael Williams route:
http://www.williamsfortexas.com/posts/34
” I say to them that I can disagree with my president based on the politics of ideas rather than the politics of identity.”
You know why Rush is needed? BECAUSE THE LIBERAL MEDIA WILL ROUND-FILE THE DECENT, HONEST, HONORABLE STATEMENT BY AFRICAN-AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL LEADER MICHAEL WILLIAMS.
So you get the satire, sure to make conservative laugh and nod and liberals to blow their top … “We know that white students are destroying civility on buses, white students destroying civility in classrooms all over America, white congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives.”
As for RM: “I will go to my grave wondering how in God’s name so many people who think themselves “conservative” can find anything of value by listening to such a pompous lout.”
Maybe because we are in on the joke and dont take all as seriously as a Lehrer News Hour interview.
Because Rush exposes the absurdity of the liberal media in an entertaining way. he channels the liberal MSM without having to suffer through actually watching that dreck. If you know he’s over the top, chalk it up to Rush’s ‘entertaining hyperbole’ and get off the pedestal of faux huffery…. Who in the media is NOT a ‘pompous lout’? NONE OF THEM. (Except the Moran bros, of course).
Comment by Travis Monitor — 9/16/2009 @ 11:01 pm
“But the point is towards the media and their reactions and not the event itself.”
EXZACTLY!
80% of what Rush does is actually media criticism … ‘The Drive-Bys’.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 9/16/2009 @ 11:04 pm
“The Rush Limbaugh of 2009 channels is inner Mark Levin too much”
The Mark Levin who sold 1 million copies of his excellent book?
#1 bestselling author?
Comment by Travis Monitor — 9/16/2009 @ 11:06 pm
“This whole we white men are victims and under siege spiel. IMHO, that is pathetic whining.”
Really? Who’s whining??? …
This whole ‘our black President running the country and his minions and ACORN and Van Jones and Gate are victims and under siege’ spiel. IMHO, that is pathetic whining.
there are a lot of Democrats who susceptible to this kind of demagoguery. And many who engage in it. Jimmy Carter for one….
Comment by Travis Monitor — 9/16/2009 @ 11:09 pm
RM: “I think Dreher overreacts a little but his point is well made. ”
Phooey. I think Rush overreacts a little to the massive media malpractice and Democrat demagoguery wrt race-card playing, but his point is well made.
If Rush is a lout then so is Dreher for engaging in the shaming-on-behalf-of-political-correctness that makes us “a nation of cowards” on race.
It’s a plain fact that Dreher’s: “increasingly hysterical atmosphere of protest against that black president” is unadulterated bullcr8p. there is nothing ‘hysterical’ about the protest against the increasingly unpopular President Obama. Just because one Congresscritter got vocal when Obama told a presidential whopper does not mean things are ‘hysterical’.
Obama is simply a mediocre President who is over his head and has made bad appointments, has an over-ambitious leftist agenda, and lacks the leadership skills to pull it all off. This is becoming obvious now EVEN TO OBAMA’S SUPPORTERS.
Opposing Obama’s agenda has nothing to do with race. It’s the same old politics practiced throughout our history. Only now the race card gets played anytime the President is critiqued or challenged, as a defense mechanism by the left to shut down criticism. It is shameful and disgusting way to close down dissent, it’s completely false, and it won’t save Obama’s credibility nor his agenda.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 9/16/2009 @ 11:19 pm
Travis Monitor,
hey where is Freedom’s Truth. Who is whining? You for one! Liberals are closet racists and hypocrites? Big deal. So are many conservatives. Big deal. Race card played, PC card played, yawn. What does have to do with being conservatives. Nothing.
Comment by funny man — 9/16/2009 @ 11:48 pm
Rick’s response to comment #8:
“I don’t think Limbaugh is a hater - or I lack the ability to read his mind. Rather, in the same vein as Al Sharpton, he is a calculating race agitator - stirring the pot for his own aggrandizement.
Racially insensitive? Perhaps. Racist - don’t think so. I think its time for thoughtful people to reclaim the strict meaning of that word and apply it where it is truly deserved. The way it is being tossed about today cheapens it and causes it to lose its sting.”
. . .
That’s a pretty damn clear, careful and fair delineation. Touche.
p.s.: and I agree that Sharpton is, as you define it, a “race agitator”.
Comment by busboy33 — 9/17/2009 @ 2:43 am
Rick, I have seriously begun to question your intelligence in that you can’t see the obvious sarcasm in Rush’s quote above. If you actually listened to the show instead of just reading the transcript, you’d realize that it was complete sarcasm (the tone in his voice was obvious).
Rush is a brilliant satirist and an important part of the Conservative movement, whether you like it or not. Love him or hate him, it is probable that if not for Limbaugh, much of the popular Conservative movement that materialized over the past 20 years would not have happened to the same extent. Limbaugh took the Conservatism of Reagan and Buckley and popularized it to a point beyond where it had ever been before.
We need to stop attacking our own, with very few exceptions. There is just as much room and importance in our movement for the Limbaughs and the Morans of the world. We’re going to self-destruct if we attack each other the way we are. Rick, your tone over the past couple of months has been hate-filled at the Palins and the Limbaughs of the world whose tactics you disagree with. We can all agree that the (very few) racist signs and nazi-signs at the tea party’s were wrong and should be condemned. That is behavior that we should fight. But to attack Limbaugh’s character for making a point about the double-standard of racial claims by the media and the politically correct assumption that racism only goes one way is disengenuous at best.
Comment by Sal — 9/17/2009 @ 5:46 am
RM:”my fellow conservatives. We just don’t have what it takes to play the race card effectively.”
First off, I think the whole premise that needs to be challenged is that the race card should be played. It should be retired. Calling someone a racist should be reserved for those who want to send blacks to segregated schools and stop them from voting, not used any time a complaint is lodged against a black personality.
Funnyman: “hey where is Freedom’s Truth.”
I’m back.
” Who is whining? You for one! Liberals are closet racists and hypocrites? Big deal.”
Yes, liberal politicians are hypocrites. Not a whine, just reality. Pelosi doing the ‘civility thing’ now, lauding loud obnoxious protesters back then. Obama complaining about dishonest statements, then telling woppers in his speech, etc. It goes on.
However, I dont want to associate with calling liberals ‘closet racists’ except in individual cases where it is manifestly true. Most liberals, conservatives, etc. are *NOT* racists, and its been reduced to an “I’m rubber, you’re glue” back-and-forth taunt, because it is the left, not the right, that caters to race-based identity politics.
” So are many conservatives.”
Wrong and again unfair … the racism charge is overused and wrong.
” Big deal.”
Actually the big deal is the suppression of dissent and censoring of thought that is implicit in the ‘race card’.
Maybe we are in violent agreement on the overuse/abuse of the term.
But its clear that using the term poisons the well in political debate,
and its not healthy.
My underlying point: The Left has used the “race-card” as a dissent-suppression shaming device. It is rooted in Alinsky-style politics. It’s wrong, it’s stinks and it has infested and worsened and coarsened political debate. Democrats are hypocrites to deny this while at the same time calling for ‘civility’ … *and* engaging in the coarse and ugly practice of falsely accusing conservatives of racism, solely because the current leftist in the White House happens to be black.
“…. Race card played, PC card played, yawn.” …
This may one day be a reality that we can yawn at it. But not yet. so long as former wingnut Presidents from Georgia call their opponents racists (somewhat hypocritically I might add, since Jimmy C. got his start under Gov Maddox) for daring to oppose Obama, so long as it has force (and it does), we have a negative impact on politics.
So lets have an honest debate - Name-calling people racists on the basis of mere political disagreement, its bogus and wrong. Jimmy Carter is a Jacka** for saying what he said.
“What does have to do with being conservatives. Nothing.”
I would disagree … there is a clear thread from the New Left to the tactics of ‘race-card’ playing and political correct
Dinesh D’Souza’s “Illiberal Education” exposed this, following up Bloom’s “Closing of the American Mind”. On campus today, conservative profs get their careers shortened and impacted for daring to be ‘open’ conservatives. So many are in the closet, so to speak.
Any real conservative knows this and does not discount the reality of political correctness, and its use as a tool of the new left to indotrinate others. If you don’t ‘get it’ I would direct you the writings of David Horowitz. His recent essays on Alinsky nail at least part of the source of the ‘poisoning of the well’ in our politics today:
http://frontpagemag.com/readBlog.aspx?BLOGID=1048
Comment by Freedoms Truth — 9/17/2009 @ 10:52 am
Hrm….Sarcasm is a second lanuage I see….
Comment by Zeitgeist — 9/17/2009 @ 12:20 pm
Rick, look behind you. It went right over your head.
It’s called satire.
He was playing off the ‘Is Your Baby a Racist’ Newsweek cover. Listen to the whole segment.
Man, oh, man.
Man oh, man if you think that rancid, venomous, hyperbolic explosion was “satire” or “parody” or “sarcasm” you people are beyond help. There was no logic, no reason, no semblance of a connection to what the Newsweek article was about. Superficially, Limbaugh took the headline and then mounted the most horrendously dishonest attack on it - not using anything from the article itself, simply riffing off the headline, trying to make a point about a media double standard.
And you fell for it. You got riled up because maybe you are a closet Kluxer. I don’t know. I do know that rational people can critique that Newsweek article without resorting to the kind of idiotic, manipulative, and ultimately self-defeating rhetoric used by Limbaugh.
ed.
Comment by Jeff — 9/17/2009 @ 12:25 pm
Right on Freedoms Truth! Oh jeez not another whiner that can’t see the obvious ‘Racist!’ tool used by the LEFT to bludgeon the weak willed Conservatives like Frum, Brooks and Moran. Rush, the most successful talk radio person in history was using parody to highlight the Left Media’s hypocritical use of ‘Racist’ as a PC tool to shatter whiny Rinos and you fell for it. I for one certainly don’t think that the Conservatives need these weak sisters mucking around with their tales between their legs. Just shutup and let those willing to do the hard lifting get the job done.
Your idea of “parody” is shockingly stupid and ignorant. Parody of what, exactly? Honest thinking? Intelligent analysis? The word, Mr. Potato Head, you are searching for with your debilitated and deflated brain is “sarcasm” or perhaps “satire.” I’m not surprised that a mouth breather like you who wants me to leave with my “tale” between my legs (hard to do but I’ll try to walk out the door with a story fixed between my knees) doesn’t know the difference and couldn’t give examples of any of those rhetorical/literary devices anyway.
And a little more of that “hard lifting” and people like you and Limbaugh are going to drive conservatism to destruction, thank you.
Why should I “shut up” and leave the fate of conservatism in the hands of mountebanks like Limbaugh and irrational, drooling children like you?
ed.
Comment by WestWright — 9/17/2009 @ 1:22 pm
Mr. Moran would strengthen his position immeasurably if he actually provided quotes of Mr. Limbaugh’s for each of these assertions, rather than just assuring us that these statements were all made as Mr. Moran characterizes them.
Just instructing the readers to go an find these samplings for themselves is intellectually lazy and does not present an argument sufficiently well to carry all these points.
Comment by Cool Cool Waters — 9/17/2009 @ 4:11 pm
Freedom’s Truth,
Horowitz on Alinsky; trust me I don’t have time to read garbage like that. I don’t care for Horowitz and I don’t care for Alinsky. I don’t watch too much TV so excuse me that I’m not familiar with the latest ohh so important news. I don’t care. Conservatives want less government, liberals more. I want less and that is all I need to know.
Comment by funny man — 9/17/2009 @ 4:53 pm
If you listend to the whole show, instead of taking one single section, you would understand that he DID take the time to critically attack the Newsweek piece. He spent most of that hour building up the various components of race-bating on the left that had been occurring over the past several days - the many charges of racism against Tea Party goers and other supporters, the Newsweek piece, the charges against Joe Wilson that he was a racist simply because he (inappropriately) shouted “You Lie” on the House floor. Then he brought in this story about a White kid getting beat up and the mainstream media reporting that it was not racially motivated. He was doing what Rush always says he does - illustrates absurdity by being absurd. And you are too thick and apparently not smart enough to get it.
Now your resorting to calling anyone who listens to Rush a Klansmen? Rick, this is a new low even for you. Just because you didn’t get what Rush said, you are doing just what you claim he did. Rather than arguing out points against what Jeff said, to call him a Klansman is disgraceful, out of line and should be called out. It speaks very poorly of you, Rick, that you resorted to this line of attack on one of your readers, and I think you owe Jeff an apology. As one who claims to be for civil discourse and logical arguments, that comment just discredited your entire argument.
Comment by Sal — 9/18/2009 @ 6:08 am
[...] is a bit more moderate than I am). Yet, earlier this week, he wrote a column that I found to be a vitriolic attack on Rush Limbaugh for a typical Rush segment in which Rush illustrated absurdity by being absurd. The bit in [...]
Pingback by Rick Moran’s “Right Wing Nut House” Should Be Renamed “Nut House” | Axis of Right — 9/18/2009 @ 6:38 am
#34 and 35 got to the point before me, You obviously don’t know Rush’s style. He will say things that can easily be taken out of context and prepare the coming attack for the judo move. I laugh when I hear Rush do these things, because I know what he is trying to accomplish. He will show with their own reactions the spirit that motivates the offended to over react. He knows where they will go and they always take the bait… because their desire to neutralize or discredit him exceeds their ability to listen to what he is really saying. He knows their template better than they do.
Comment by John Taylor — 9/18/2009 @ 8:21 am
Mr. Moran, can you spell satire? Jeesh, how dense can you get?
Comment by RDN in Houston — 9/18/2009 @ 12:26 pm
Students in Belleville school bus attack are charged
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/1586F1C3B8DACF3786257635006BC3A8?OpenDocument
Comment by Cool Cool Waters — 9/18/2009 @ 6:09 pm
Oh, I didn’t realize you lacked a sense of humor. I guess I don’t click over here and read you often enough.
Comment by Nik Mendota — 9/18/2009 @ 7:53 pm
Sir,
I just found your site and have been browsing.
A wise black woman (she refused to be called African American) once told me that name calling and excessive use of profanity were used by ignorant people to avoid dealing with more important issues. I think she was right.
Everyone is so busy calling me a racist for disagreeing with many of the President’s policies. I thought he was bi-racial; so the logical conclusion must be that I hate whites as well as blacks. I must hate myself as well since I am white. If his health care reform goes through, let’s hope I can get counseling because according to this logic, I’m going to need it.
Funny, noone called me a sexist when I disagreed with President Bush or John McCain. I wasn’t called a misogynist when I disagreed with some of what Sarah Palin said.
I’ve never listened to Rush, I read this blog and thought his comments were overly sarcastic. However, I can see how someone can think he was being devisive as well.
I really wish we could all get beyond name calling and have rational discussions. I want to be informed. I no longer want to take for granted the rights and freedoms that so many men and women have died for.
Comment by phoenix — 9/19/2009 @ 12:51 am
@ Phoenix
Hmmm. So I guess Halle Berry, Rosa Parks, Adam Clayton Powell, Sally Hemmings, Frederick Douglass, W.E.b DuBois, Ralph Bunche, Lena Horne, Booker T. Washington, Elijah McCoy, Benjamin Banneker, Langston Hughes, etc..etc..they aren’t “really” black right? LOL.
Comment by Augustine — 9/19/2009 @ 9:56 am
Re:I will go to my grave wondering …anything of value by listening to such a pompous lout.
Thank You! I’ve had the same argument too often, though I used ‘pompous a**’ to label his schtick. At least he calls himself an entertainer, I’ve never seen him as a conservative ‘leader’, unless it was in over the top rhetoric.
Comment by Bill Beyer — 9/20/2009 @ 4:45 pm
You used to elicit and occasional clever insight, but is satire and irony completely lost on you? I haven’t listened to Rush regularly for many years, but I can still recognize his point that was completely lost on you. He’s been making fools of those who miss the point for his entire career, though the fools usually continue to miss that fact, too. Buy a clue.
Comment by bewilderd — 9/22/2009 @ 1:03 pm