The attacks against Limbaugh continue: Conservative Bloggers Join In
It’s too sad for words, but it seems that the White House has succeeded in playing out conservative bloggers and pundits against each other. Their goal was, as Saul Alinsky made clear in his rule book for “radicals,” to isolate radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. They, to a degree, succeeded.
This begs the question of course why they went after Limbaugh. The reason, I think, is simple: they fear him and other pundits, journalists, etc. who dare criticize Obama. If people in the media watch Obama carefully, focus on what he’s doing and what it’ll do to the country as a whole, Obama and the Democrats as a whole will lose support. They can’t allow this to happen, of course, so they’re constantly attacking members of the opposition. Note that they’re not attacking the opposition ‘in general,’ but only specific individuals. This too comes straight out of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”
Especially Patterico, who is a lawyer after all, should be ashamed of himself. He has sided with the White House on this one, presumably because he failed to take the time to actually read what Limbaugh said about Obama. The debate focused on Limbaugh’s “I want Obama to fail” strategy. It should be clear to anyone, as Limbaugh also explained at CPAC, that Limbaugh doesn’t want Obama to leave the country in worse shape than it is, but that he hopes that the opposition will succeed in preventing Obama’s planned policies from being implemented. Why? Because those policies will hurt the economy and freedom in the long run. Hence, Limbaugh doesn’t want Obama ‘to succeed.’ Read also this post at the Sundries Shack. Jimmy explains Limbaugh’s position quite well.
These conservative bloggers who have gone after Limbaugh in recent days and weeks have done themselves and their movement a tremendous disservice. Obama, Emanuel, etc. are using a truly despicable strategy against members of the opposition; the opposition should unite and condemn the White House for governing as if the campaign continues.
By the way, those who thought that Bill Clinton was bad may yet find out that Obama is much, much worse. This man is willing to destroy people’s lives; not just politicians, but members of the media, even citizens who dare ask him a question (Joe Wurzelbacher anyone?).
Also be sure to read this post by Patrick Ruffini:
These haven’t been the best couple of weeks for Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele, or Bobby Jindal. (OK, let’s carve out a possible exception for Limbaugh.)
What these three people have in common is that they’re all significant figures who have taken fire from different elements of the conservative movement at the behest of the Obama White House and the Kos/TPM/Olbermann triangle.
It’s time this stopped.
Conservatives need to decide who we want to see succeed and who we want to see fail. We then need to calibrate our reactions to the inevitable missteps from either camp accordingly. If someone we want to succeed comes under attack, we hold our fire and close ranks — unless it’s clear they’ve become a long-term liability. If it’s someone we want to see fail — like Jim Bunning – we unload until they get off the stage.
Limbaugh, Steele, and Jindal are all important personalities that we should all want to see succeed.
That’s right.
Yes, how dare conservatives not want to be tied to one of the most polarizing political pundits in the history of America. And yes, it’s all the White House’s doing.
The Republicans are struggling to find their leaders right now, and if some of them don’t want the party to be associated with Limbaugh, how is that not appropriate? And if, as you’ve said numerous times before, conservatism is about being honest and forthright, then condemning these bloggers them for merely voicing their opinion flies directly in the face of that.
As far as this strategy being “despicable”, naming Limbaugh as the ideological leader of the right wing, after numerous Republican politicians have had to personally apologize to him for disagreeing publicly with his policies, can hardly be described as despicable.
Last, but certainly not least, the Saul Alinsky reference is uber-hacky, especially since we just saw 8 years of an administration that literally tried to destroy their critics lives. But to that point, every administration has to address their critics, whether they be media personalities, fellow politicians or foreign leaders. Especially when they directly criticize you, you don’t agree with the points they’re making and people ask you specifically about them. But hey, never waste an opportunity to tie Obama to a radical, leftist agenda, eh?
Address their critics, yes. But that’s different from the dishonest tactic of labeling a critic as the entirety of the opposition and criticism all on his lonesome. On that same basis we can tag the Democrats as being Michael Moore’s personal mob.
And really, Bush is gone. Isn’t it time to lose the reflexive BDS?
BDS?
Tully, you need to get a new schtick.
I do note that you also don’t address the main point I make, which is it’s hardly despicable or even incorrect when numerous conservatives are saying, “Limbaugh does not speak for me.” This alone means that they realize his power in the party and are sick of it.
Also, do you not see the irony that Michael points to Saul Alinsky’s strategy in a post that singles out and condemns conservatives bloggers who are speaking out? As if…isn’t this supposed to be a moderate blog? One would think Michael would applaud conservative bloggers for breaking from the party line. Please tell me this isn’t lost on you.
I think there are a lot of “schticks” that new renewal, Justin. Perhaps you should tend to your own garden.
I just did a quick review of your front page and was unsurprised to find a continuation of 100% anti-Republican and reflexive pro-Obama content indicative of the deepest parts of the BDS phase that took over the allegedly moderate blogosphere in the last two years. You criticize others for being “uber-hacky” when they disagree with you, but you yourself cannot seem to find the time to criticize even one figure on the liberal/left side of the ideological spectrum. And you repeat standardized, scripted anti-Republican talking points without even a hint of skepticism or critical analysis. The name of your site amounts to false advertising, as far as I am concerned. If you want to go around policing whether this is supposed to be a moderate site, you should take similar criticism in return. I don’t expect much openness from you towards incoming criticism, however. With you, it is always a one-way process.
I am so tired of bloggers and commenters and their blatantly scripted totally non-responsive talking points I could puke. I’ve almost entirely stopped writing just because I can’t stomach the complete waste of time when other bloggers like you and commenters with the same narrow ideological mindsets simply ignore most of what is written in their haste to get to their repetitive pre-scripted talking points.
The so-called “moderate blogosphere” that you champion is being forced to choose sides and you’re one of the ones doing the forcing.
Justin, I’ll take a more nuanced approach than Michael.
I have no problem with conservative or center right bloggers and pundits saying that Limbaugh doesn’t speak for them, or pushing back against the assertion by the WH that Limbaugh is the voice of the GOP.
That actually is very healthy and necessary- no party or movement is led by any one individual anyway, and a polarizing figure shouldn’t be given a mantle of sole leadership. And in fact, this would help discredit and call out the Obama administration for this political gamemanship they’re engaging in.
However, all conservatives should reserve the right to also agree with Limbaugh whether 50%, 60%, 80%, or 99% of the time. What people should be doing is rejecting the notion that conservatives have to pass a litmus test regarding Limbaugh in any way shape or form. I wish I’d hear one of these Republicans answer the media pundits questions about LImbaugh by asking whether Democrats are similarly going to be asked about Olbermann or Moore. They should point out that all parties and all political movements have their divisive spokespeople, and often we agree with the message if not the messenger’s style.
In short, it’s all a trap and the GOP needs to avoid it, not engage in no-win strategies of either supporting or rejecting Rush Limbaugh.
Christine, you are right to point out that it is a trap to associate all Republicans with Limbaugh, but Michael is also right to point out that the trap is one that is at least actively supported and possibly outright fabricated by anti-Republican activists who want to use the association to permanently tarnish the Republican brand. Not satisfied with Democratic partisan domination of all 3 branches of the government in the present, they want to continue to force dissent to the margins and suppress any and all criticism in the hopes of making single-party governance permanent. It is telling that so many bloggers who claimed to care about accountability have yet to deploy their interest in accountability with regards to a Democratic administration with anything near the zeal they had for its application towards a Republican one. And when those bloggers claim to be non-partisan moderates, they compound their hypocrisy with dishonesty, IMHO.
I think it is dangerous. I think anyone who is truly moderate seeks checks against complete ideological dominance of either extreme. And when so-called moderates sacrifice their independence in order to indulge their zealous hatred of the former administration, they forfeit their claim to the center along with their claim to be a positive contributor to a national debate.
Reading the non-debate idiocy that dominates the blogosphere now is depressing. No one explains or debates anything. They only, like Justin, complain that the other side had the audacity to say anything contrary to the Required Thought in the first place. And the persistence and intensity of this pattern is what is making the blogosphere an intellectually impossible place these days.
Jason, I just responded to your email. Please write me back as soon as you can.
Best,
Justin
I agree, and yes, I definitely agree that the whole point of the “Rush Limbaugh is the standard bearer of the GOP” brigade is to tarnish the image of conservatism and prevent moderates from taking any criticism of the Obama administration seriously.
I’ve said it before- the center is not holding right now. People who would otherwise be holding both sides accounatable have chosen sides (or chosen one particular side, the left, with just a few exceptions remaining.)
The center is not holding right now for the Republican Party. There seems to be nothing but yelling going on…it is a big distraction. Rush needs to tone it down and have a discourse with listeners of all stripes. He may have a small conservative base but the others have left the party and if things don’t change may not come back. The moderates did not vote with the party last election. Big city numbers and suburban votes prove that. Time for centering or becoming a marginal party
The GOP just ran one of their more moderate candidates, who actually had a history of working in a bipartisan manner. The so called moderate bloggers, and voters, rejected him in favor of a smooth talking liberal.
A moderate conservative was defeated by a moderate liberal, yes.
Neither was extreme.
And in Obama’s defense, he has generally avoided the extremism and demonization of the opposition while in office. The dysfunction in the national debate (especially in the blogosphere) cannot be blamed on the political leadership. The sickness is among US.
My problem with this claim is that any centering, even if it occurred, would inevitably be ignored or misrepresented by liberals who perceive an advantage in making the Republicans appear even more extreme than they are. Look at how John McCain was misrepresented during the campaign as a die-hard conservative, for example.
Even when moderate Republicans do emerge, liberals use their domination of the media and blogosphere to hide it as much as possible and to redirect the audience’s attention to the fruit bats.
Oh, and Pat…I don’t know if you’re a concerned Republican or a concern troll, but if you are the former than I’d say take a few deep breaths and relax.
The GOP is doing just fine under the circumstances. We just lost two consecutive election cycles in a big way, and our outgoing president was highly unpopular after fighting two wars and presiding over an economic collapse.
And yet even with all of that, the generic Congressional ballots are holding steady (during the stimulus debate- short lived though it was- I saw a poll showing that the GOP had actually made gains relative to the Dems in Congress during that time- I’m not sure if that holds now or not but I’m pretty sure they’re at least close to even.)
And although the blogosphere acts as though Obama has a Midas touch due to unassailable popularity, his approval ratings have been completely on par with new presidents in modern times. In addition, there’s already a gap (and growing) between people’s opinions of Obama himself and his policies. The latter (which are a better reflection of his actual approval ratings) are already down in the 50s (56% I think was the last I saw.)
The only way he stays popular is by continuing to deflect attention away from the actual policies.
For all of Limbaugh’s ego and polarizing effects, he can in fact be a good spokesperson for public opposition to Obama’s policies, and it may well turn out that the Emmanuel/Carville/Obama tactic of putting public attention onto Limbaugh could backfire as more and more people tune in to see what all the ruckus is about and Limbaugh gets a bigger platform from which to explain the conservative arguments against Obamanomics.
And in Obama’s defense, he has generally avoided the extremism and demonization of the opposition while in office. The dysfunction in the national debate (especially in the blogosphere) cannot be blamed on the political leadership. The sickness is among US.
Wow, I can’t tell you how wrong I think you are on that, Jason. Obama stays above the fray, with the tone of his own statements, sure- but you seriously don’t think he’s engaged in this sort of thing by making Limbaugh the strawman to obfuscate real debate?
Obama certainly didn’t start this whole thing, but he quite obviously took the temperature of moderates and figured out how to play the game to his advantage.
I wonder if even I’m choosing sides. I still think I routinely jab at both sides, but I tend to be more vicious toward liberals these days.
I think there ought to be a concerted effort among moderates to remain that way in their writings.
And I think you should not despair, Jason. I know you desire a less partisan and scripted arena (as do I), but I think (despite some characters), that places like here still fulfill that niche. I’m quite happy to debate here.