RSS
Throwing Talk Radio Under the Bus
If one were to take the Sunday shows as any indication, there must have been a memo that went out amongst Republican Party stalwarts to do anything possible to put distance between the Party and Rush Limbaugh. And yet, when Rush showed up at the CPAC conference to make a speech, he elicited eight standing ovations and clearly energized the crowd. What is going on here?
Let us set aside for one moment the question of whether Rush espouses a doctrinally pure conservatism. I promise, for those of you who are frothing at the mouth to denounce his conservative heresies, we will talk about that at the end of this post.
At the outset, any fair minded person would have to acknowledge that the controversy with Rush was created by comments made by President Obama that the Republican Party needs to stop listening to Rush. From that moment, Republicans have scampered for cover, assuring anyone who would listen that Rush doesn’t speak for them. In the current vernacular, they are throwing Rush under the bus.
Sure, one could argue that Rush brought this upon himself by saying that he hoped President Obama would fail in his attempt at adoption of his economic (“socialist,” as Rush pronounced them) policies. If one would concede that, then one would have to concede that the Bush administration was the epitome of open-mindedness and tolerance given the fact that “comedians” like Bill Maher and Keith Olberman slandered the president’s character on a nightly basis. Does anyone remember George W. Bush or anyone in his administration warning Democrats that if they hoped to get along (read: pass any legislation) with the administration, they should denounce Maher et. al.? I don’t either. The phenomenon seems to be peculiar to the Obama administration – this penchant for attacking one’s critics in the media.
What is really puzzling is not that Obama and his minions would attack the administration’s detractors, the Left has a long history of these sorts of tactics. The real surprise is the Republicans’ willingness to follow Obama’s lead and cast off one of its most effective spokesmen. You may hate Limbaugh. But you cannot deny that he captures the attention of millions of Americans every day. In addition, on balance, I think even the most ardent detractors on the Right would acknowledge that Rush does more to promote conservative values than he does to destroy them. And they would easily acknowledge that Rush is less of a threat than Obama himself.
On this issue, that Republicans (or conservatives, if one has abandoned the party) should denounce Rush for his statement that he hopes Obama’s socialistic goals fail, I wonder what the right position is. Does Ron Paul hope that Barack Obama succeeds in pushing his Socialist agenda down Americans’ throats? Why would anyone denounce Rush for that stance? Because he has the temerity to say that he hopes a black man fails? I want to know what is at the root of this reaction. Why shouldn’t the masses support Rush on this issue? Why shouldn’t that sort of rhetoric propel butts out of auditorium seats in fits of wild applause? How can anyone defend as sane this late Republican impulse to distance oneself from such a stance? What does that say about the Republican Party that when Rush says he hopes Obama fails to turn this country into a Socialist Paradise that the Party feels compelled to denounce him?
To clean up a few other items: Did Rahm Emanual really just say that Obama is going to make the economy contract – for the good of America? At around 6:15, Rahm states:
The Republicans will have the opportunity not just to criticize, but to propose. And the question is: Will they continue the path of the seven years that got us to the point of – basically a culture of rising deficits and more and more consumer spending? This budget deficit – for this budget and economic program fundamentally changes the culture in this way – it rejects the past and says we are going to be a culture and a society that invests and saves.
Those comments appear to me to be a clear message from the Obama administration, that it is not at all concerned about growing the economy. If it were, consumer spending is one of the mainstay signs of a confident and expanding economy. Emanuel has stated that this administration is more interested in promoting saving and investment. It should probably be noted that when this administration says “investment,” it means that people should send their money to Washington and allow Washington to spend it on programs and projects which it deems worthy.
In the last week, the Dow Jones Industrials have been in a nosedive. And yet, it does not appear that the Obama administration is concerned in any way. Indeed, the nosedive is directly related to his policies. One way to look at the stock market is to see it as the “experts” opinion as to what the economy will look like in 9 months or a year. And yet, even after Obama passed his stimulus plan and witnessed a minor crash of the market in its wake, he has now proposed an unprecedented expansion in spending and sent the market once again into retreat. One can only conclude that Obama is not concerned about the market or about business, but rather is more interested in advancing his own agenda where the government assumes a larger and larger role in people’s lives. One clear example of this attitude can be seen in the fact that it appears that America will have the largest corporate tax rate on earth when all is said and done. The message is being sent: We do not want business in America. Let us all hope the Obama presidency is less than “successful.”
