Rush Limbaugh Versus Democrats Has Deeper Political Significance
Skirmishes. And more skirmishes. Punch. And counter punch.
In Congress. On weblogs. And in the REAL trenches of political activism these days…talk radio.
The nation’s top progressive talker, Ed Schultz, spent much of his program lambasting top conservative talker Rush Limbaugh for Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comments — and playing extensive parts of the tape over and over for callers who were clearly Limbaugh fans who insisted Rush didn’t say what the tape most certainly suggested he did say. Conservative talker and Limbaugh associate Mark Levin later blasted Limbaugh nemesis Media Matters as a “criminal organization.”
Was it hot enough yet? NOT QUITE…
The Murdoch-owned The Weekly Standard, in a post on its blog by Brian Faughnan, says the Democrats have been clamoring for a resolution against Limbaugh and raising a fuss over the comments to distract from their own failings:
What’s going on here? The Democrats have realized that they’ve run into a brick wall on Iraq. Unless more bad news is forthcoming (and there seems to be little news from Iraq in general), they simply don’t have the votes. So they’re punting. And when the spending debate is forced on them next year, they’ll simply take the cue from their nominee — whoever he or she is.
Are Democrats admitting to the Netroots that they’ve thrown in the towel? No. Instead they’re trying to throw up as much dust as they can, by taking advantage of another ginned-up controversy. And if the Netroots actually side with a phony soldier like Tom Harkin against a critic of phony soldiers, they’ll probably buy anything.
But is it as well-thought-out as that?
If Limbaugh was Rush Schmoe rather than THE Rush Limbaugh, that theory might hold. Instead, what is unfolding is that after years of seething and giving Rush a pass, Democrats — now joined by a modest talk radio infrastructure of their own plus potent progressive Internet presence — are pushing back. They have drawn a line in the sand.
The biggest progressive big-gun pushback: former General Wesley Clark — precisely the kind of “phony soldier” you could assume Limbaugh was referring to….if you accept Limbaugh’s critics’ arguments that he was first referring to “soldiers” as meaning soldiers not in lockstep with the administration rather than a single soldier who was a fake soldier.
Clark, writing on The Huffington Post, called for Limbaugh to be taken off Armed Forces Radio.
And herein is the SUPREME IRONY: some within Armed Forces Radio and some conservatives tried to keep Schultz off Armed Forces Radio. But Schultz, who is on Armed Forces Radio (and gets calls from soldiers who don’t like U.S. policy), has been going nonstop defending the troops’ right to hold different beliefs on his program. And now it’s conservative Limbaugh being accused of badmouthing and disrespecting the guys in the field. Part of Clark’s post:
Last week, Rush Limbaugh labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as “phony.” We challenged Limbaugh through an email campaign to invite VoteVets.org’s Jon Soltz to his show and repeat these same insults to an Iraq war veteran’s face. Over 10,000 people responded and emailed Rush — but to our disappointment, he has refused to respond to our request.
It’s time to put real pressure on Rush Limbaugh. His show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, and this time we are going to go straight to the lifeblood of Rush’s show — Congress. Congress has the power to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio, and it won’t be as easy for elected officials to ignore our call.
His ending is even more potent:
How have Republicans in Congress chosen to respond so far? Congressional Republicans have actually drafted a resolution supporting Rush Limbaugh, “commending [his] relentless efforts to build and maintain troop morale through worldwide radio broadcasts and personal visits to conflict regions.”
That’s outrageous. Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment should not be commended — it should be condemned. And it’s time to tell Congress to act swiftly to hold Rush Limbaugh accountable.
And he gives this link to contact members of Congress.
How likely is it that Limbaugh will be bounced off AFR or chastised by his corporate bosses? As likely as Donald Trump kissing Rosie O’Donnell. On the lips. With a wet kiss.
The reason: Limbaugh is being charged with using the same kind of disrespectful and outrageous language as MoveOn.org used in its rightly-repudiated (by most) ad. Unlike the case of the axed Don Imus, Limbaugh is only accused of demonization — a staple now of 21st century American politics, talk radio and (unfortunately) the blogosphere — not racism.
Moreover, Imus was dumped by his CBS bosses who felt the heat and felt the cost of keeping him was greater than getting rid of him. Limbaugh is a cash cow (no pun intended). And his bosses show no sign of even reining him in:
Clear Channel CEO Mark P. Mays responded to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a letter hand-delivered to his office this evening.
“While I certainly do not agree with all views that are voiced on our stations, I will not condemn our talent for exercising their right to voice them,” Mays wrote.
He took a respectful tone, saying he regretted that Reid and others might have been offended by Limbaugh. But ultimately, Mays wrote, he didn’t believe Limbaugh’s statements were “intended to personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn’t share his own beliefs regarding the war in Iraq.”
So Clear Channel solidly backs Limbaugh’s explanation.
To Limbaugh’s critics, Limbaugh’s passionate explanation is a CY-big-A cover story. They have long agreed with THIS. Limbaugh’s supporters and admirers, in turn, accept Limbaugh’s indignant explanation and are unwavering in their support of him and think Limbaugh’s critics are out to get Rush because he is so powerful. in an attempt to damage the Republicans.
And, indeed, the deeper significance is what Limbaugh has come to represent: the embodiment of conservative talk as a kind of rallying point for Republicans that has helped them win elections.
And the embodiment of how once serious political discussion has become for many starting in the late 20th century a enjoyable verbal and political version of professional wrestling where three hours a day of airtime is filled with gleeful partisan demonization of one political party — and the praising, rationalizing or justifying of the talk show host’s own party.
It is potent in political terms: people are more prone to rush to the polls to vote AGAINST someone than to vote FOR someone.
But there are wheels within wheels.
Are the Democrats pressing this as payback for the political beating their side took on the MoveOn.com ad and the way the GOP jumped on it as the ad was being condemned in many quarters — successfully getting a resolution through Congress that put Democrats on the spot? (“Duh”?) Are they trying to clip his wings? Are Limbaugh and his supporters now pulling out all stops to in return demonize Democrats because they fear Limbaugh’s (limited) credibility outside the partisan sphere has been wounded and they’re trying to keep the Limbaugh franchise strong and credible?
Meanwhile, has Limbaugh peaked? Progressive talk may be struggling (and some shows may be doomed in the end) but it’s a new if uncertain product bringing in new listeners. Limbaugh remains the ultimate show for staunch Republican partisans, increasingly offering little reason for those who don’t want to hear three hours of Democrat/Liberal/Hillary bashing. (If you listen to Michael Savage, you hear someone more to the right who is a loose cannon primed to go off at any minute and even rage against the GOP).
Will this incident INCREASE his audience share/influence — or stem it? And, given his importance to the GOP in elections, what are the implications if his and his partisan’s explanations don’t quite jell with what others who are not Rush foes or fans hear on that tape?
Is this about Rush? Or is Michelle Malkin correct, in suggesting it’s all about trying to bring back the fairness doctrine and control and limit conservative talk? (Democrats and progressive talkers have contended this argument raised by conservatives when talk-radio is criticized is a inaccurate and/or a smoke screen).
And where will it end? There is no end in sight yet. In fact, it continues to escalate. VoteVets is running this commercial:
Limbaugh’s website is crammed with related posts (including one that says Hillary Clinton — Limbaugh’s favorite demon among Democratic demons — started Media Matters). If nothing else, the controversy could help boost his already considerable audience.
But he was not pleased with the Vote Vets ad. Which led Media Matters to run THIS post.
And so it goes…
And goes…and goes…
Yet, there is only so much energy. If both sides expend so much energy battling over MoveOn.org and Rush Limbaugh, that energy and discussion time has to cut out time for energy to be spent and discussions to have on other issues such as the I-r-a-q W-a-r-.
Would you say “ditto” to that?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “Rush Limbaugh Versus Democrats Has Deeper Political Significance”
[...] House Rush Limbaugh Versus Democrats Has Deeper Political Significance » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
[...] when I thought that I might be the only one who has had enough of this ‘debate’ I read this post by Joe Gandelman and I could, once again, feel comfortable knowing that at least one person shares [...]
Talk about false scandals, the US seems to be totally enamoured with them. No, let’s not talk about the accuracy of the Petraus report, let’s scream and counter-scream about an ad in the NYT. No, let’s not have a long and complicated conversation about troop conditions, rotation times, psychological conditions and the real consequences of low troop morale, let’s scream and counter-scream about what some guy said on the radio. While we’re screaming, we don’t have to be thinking, and who wants to think, really?
Congress should NOT be in the business of condemning or commending what any private citizen or citizen group chooses to say. We’re neck deep in debt, with a health care crisis and a war that is getting harder and longer by the day. Congress has about 1 million different things that urgently need their attention the whole 4 days a week they aren’t fundraising.
And while I’m on my rant, can we please stop pretending that they psyche of a soldier is like a fine glass flower? Think of it this way, you’re 25, you have a spouse and a young child that by now mostly knows you through pictures. You’re on your third tour, and have already seen 4 or 5 of your buddies die. You’re driving in your un-armoured hummer praying that the guy who just smiled at you before ducking in a house isn’t calling up his friends right now for them to lay out the IED. It’s a friggen oven and you’ve just been told that your leave has been delayed….again. In that situation, do you think that you give a rats ass what some people with way too much time on their hands put in an ad on the NYT or what some fat-ass whose never been in uniform said on the radio? You have bigger concerns, really.
Kabuki politics…I think that is the deeper significance of all of this.
Bush and the GOP wanted a diversion from the issue of the war – which they seem unable to do anything about – & MoveOn provided it.
Democrats in Congress and campaigning wanted a diversion from the issue of the war – which they seem unable to do anything about (and which is infuriating their anti-war base at them) – & Limbaugh provided it.
Beyond the “pox on both your houses” view…another important feature of this clash is its incorporating the two most powerful elements in the Left & Right arsenal today: the continually “shocked & appalled” Left Internet-based fronts (MoveOn; MediaMatters) and conservative Talk radio. Different media…different ideologies…but the same self-interest promoted by controversy and polarization.
It would be pleasant if they could be shipped to a desert island, where they could happily denounce each other for an audience of monkeys, and let everyone have their coffee in peace.
Crazy as the rational for the war was, incompetent as its conduct is, things keep getting crazier, don’t they?
We’re living in a country where the screamers rule and those like Lynx and Marlowe are pushed to the side. The media has no interest in explaining a war that is complex and in all likelihood impossible to resolve. The dogfight is easier to report and, if we’re honest, far preferred by a majority of their audiences.
Outside of the 29 percenters, no one believes we’re going in the right direction and everyone with a brain realizes that with a stalled congress and a deaf administration, nothing is getting better any time soon.
BTW, cruelty to animals is still a crime, Marlowe.
I find it disgusting that Concress would waste time on ads by advocacy groups and screaming talk shoe hosts instead of informing themselfes about the important issues of the day.
What have they said about Burma? What do they evn know about Burma?
The Leberman/Kyl amendment re Iran was a disgrace and an insult to intelligence. More ‘asis of evil’ posturing. The Democrats act like mirror images of Bush! What happened to all thsoe fine speeches about employing diplomacy?
I’ve shipped off so many letters of protest to my reps, my fingers have blisters (almost).
Truflo said: “BTW, cruelty to animals is still a crime, Marlowe.”
Heh-heh-heh….
I am shocked and appalled by your vicious smear on Marlowes, Truflo. Shocked and appalled….
That you should imply that I would be cruel to monkeys by forcing them to listen to Limbaugh & Co. is simply too outrageous for words (though yes, I might have said it…but that is beside the point…).
That is why, as of this morning, I am calling on Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi to initiate a Congressional resolution condemning in no uncertain terms Truflo’s unwarranted, unmitigated and unprecedented smear on Marlowes.
Marlowe-
You get 20 points for an excellent sense of humor.
Domajot said: “screaming talk shoe hosts”
A serendipitous typo, that brings a wonderful image to mind of Limbaugh standing on a streetcorner screaming into his shoe…a recently deinstitutionalized patient off his meds.
“I’ve shipped off so many letters of protest to my reps, my fingers have blisters (almost).”
No?! Hahahaha…at the rate this absurd farce is progressing, Domajot, your fingers will be bloody stumps by election day.
Okay, Marlowe, make it 50 points.
And, BTW, thanks for the laugh intermission. It’s very therapeutic.
I sometimes forget how funny crazy people can be at times. (I should look in the mirror more.)
In a comment posted this morning at 5.14am, a statement I made was taken out of context and misinterpreted deliberately. A careful review of my comment will show that at no time did I accuse any Marlowe of cruelty to animals, I merely pointed out that monkeys have feelings too and one should be aware of this fact.
I have already been in contact with my congressman who assures me he will be putting forward a counter Congressional resolution commending me for my support for and vigilance of all things monkeyish.
Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen expressing his first amendment rights.
Moveon.org is an organization of private citizens expressing their first amendment rights.
They are both entitled to do so. However they both represent political groups and as such they both are held accountable for what they say.
That is all that is going on here. Accountability. That still matters.
I think.
I enjoyed the humor break too…
And I’m wondering, am I the only one with a recurring mental image of Looney Tunes cartoons as I think about our current politicians? Yosemite Sam chasing Bugs with a pistol…exit stage right…then Bugs coming after Sam with a cannon…then a bigger cannon aimed at Bugs by Sam…then Bugs manages to tie the muzzle of the cannon into a knot so that it blows up in Sam’s face…
If it all weren’t so pathetic, it would be quite amusing.
joe, you know i love you and your sight, but i have yet to see any “well repudiated” writings about the moveon ad. the actual content of the ad, aside from the pun on the guy’s name (and we should all just be thankful he wasn’t named “gen. buckhew”), was true, and was not repudiated, even by the washpost fact checker.
what i’m getting tired of is the repubbbs do something sleazy, then the dems do the same sort of thing, and then people all cry about how they are tired of the sleazy things the politicians do.
why aren’t all you high-minded moderates decrying the bs the repubbbs do in the first place, so the dems don’t feel that they have to fight fire with fire?
if the so-called middle would stand up to the loony right and call them on their underhanded tactics when they happen, then i wouldn’t be so quick to support the dems when they fire back with the same sort of stuff.
but the dems can’t just stand there and let their opponent break the rules of civil discourse without pulling some sneaky counterpunches.
call out limbaugh for his hyperbole, and then moveon won’t have to resort to hyperbole to get attention for their arguements.
Hard to come up with anything Joe didn’t cover in this post, but then there’s this:
More Dems than not ostentatiously distanced themselves from the MoveOn.org ad. Feckless of them in my opinion, but that’s the Dems for you these days.
GOP’ers, on the other hand, offer resolutions in support of Rush and, with the notable exception of McCain and Romney, decline to distance themselves from him.
Rush is increasingly becoming the face of the GOP.
Goes to show you that moderates have less tolerance for stupidity in those whose voices supposedly speak for them. Of course the GOP supports Rush and continues to do so, he says what they want to hear no matter what. And nothing means more the the rank of file of hardcore GOP than that.