An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Rush: I am Not at War with Bloggers
Rush Limbaugh: “I am not at war with bloggers” – he just did not agree ‘with that Instapundit fellow‘ – Glenn Reynolds.
Limbaugh also lists some bloggers he reads on a regular basis. Among them:
AJ Strata and Ed Morrissey; two bloggers I greatly respect and enjoy reading as well.
33 Responses to “Rush: I am Not at War with Bloggers”
It sounds like he’s backtracking after getting some poor p.r. on some of the conservative blogs. Those blogs have readers who are listeners or potential listeners. His original comments most certainly sounded like he was trying to get Reynolds to get back with the program. Clearly, it only led to some backlash so he’s trying to cut his losses.
I agree completely.
I’ve hardly listened to Limbaugh at all for the past several years so I could be wrong if he’s changed his tune, but frankly I don’t think he’s as much of a syncophant as people think he is. I know definitely when I used to tune in, he would criticize the Bush administration fairly regularly. One thing I always observed about him, though, is that he does have that “support the team” mentality about the GOP. I think he has some conservative principles that when violated by Bush or other Republicans, he will defend the principle; but on balance, he will always keep that criticism to a certain level that amounts to criticizing the coach of one’s team while still remaining a loyal fan of the team. He can never see the perspective that the team may not deserve the loyalty, that it may no longer represent the ideals that conservatives hold dear; or else perhaps he sees that but thinks that we must always work out our problems internally and not show public disloyalty. That is the difference between him and many other conservatives like Reynolds, or like Buckley and Will.
The rights’ thinking is all over the place at the moment, which is why, I think, people have stopped listening to them. Limbaugh seems mystified by the sharp drop in support. The economy is doing well, as is the war on terror, this according to many right wing pundits.
Yes, Glenn Reynolds and others do consider the war on terror, as waged by the Bush administration, a success, based, I presume, on the fact that the homeland has not been attacked since 9/11.
Odd, this, particularly as the president has repeatedly claimed Iraq as the central front in that larger war. Is there anyone anywhere who still thinks Iraq a success?
As the right becomes increasingly marginalized, their rhetoric grows ever more bizarre. Point in case- Reynolds in his soft-core criticism of Republicans never mentions either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Allowing those who sheltered the 9/11 killers back into power would, one imagines, prompt even the most right-wing of commentators to voice some kind of criticism. Apparently losing two wars on the trot is no big deal.
May there stupidity continue up to and including Nov 7th.
As Bill Clinton alluded to yesterday, it is the party’s overemphasis on ideology that is stunting its success, because it eliminates the need to search for and process all available information in problem solving. The more pragmatic Republicans realize this and have fallen off the bandwagon. Rush is an ideologue- I really don’t think he sees how ideology can be a blinding force.
I don’t know about that. Perhaps he does know, but he’s too involved in it as it is? Just one other option…….
I would say though, that I don’t really agree with Clinton. Ideology can be blinding, but it doesn’t have to be; therefore I don’t reject the concept of ideology, I just think that people who embrace it should be aware of the danger and make sure they don’t have blinders on. It would have been perfectly possible, for example, for Bush to have taken an ideological approach to GWOT but to have seen the battlefronts in a more realistic way so that he could have crafted a strategy that had a chance of success.
CS- I think if he hadn’t been blinded by ideology, he would have seen that the mission had a poor chance of success and not attempted it in the first place!He would have gone after the real enemy- al queda and might have been able to cripple them if he had not lost focus. I look at the non-ideological approach of his father, who knew that removing Saddam would unleash a hornet’s nest in the ME, as the much wiser approach.
Those who have never known democracy will never be forced into it.The British occupied Iraq for 12 years and tried, unsuccessfully to bring democratic reform to the country. As soon as they left, the country fell into chaos, leading to autocratic rule.
Bush was unfamiliar with the culture and tribalism of the region, and blissfully naive about how Shiites would balk at power-sharing with the Sunnis who had oppressed them for decades.
Plus removing Saddam alligned Iraq with Iran- a state that DOES sponsor terrorism. This was a fool’s errand, that could only serve to destabilize the balance of power in the ME.
Kim,
Yes, I know this is what you think and I agree that Bush WAS blinded, but I’m saying that I don’t think it had to be that way. In other words, I’m saying that the problem was simply that he allowed himself to be blinded by his ideology, not that the ideology itself was the problem (do you remember my post a while back about “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”? This is another example where I think that applies. The ideology is not wrong simply because it was used wrongly IMO)
Well, there we will have to agree to disagree, I’m afraid. I wholeheartedly applaud a cooperative approach with other nations, not one based on ideology. That way when we need to count on others they are actually with us-not because they have been given some kind of ultimatum, but because they believe we are a force for the common good-that’s about as ideological as I want to get. I believe in direct talks with our enemies-isolating them has caused us to unite against us, and has actually strengthened them.
Kim,
The problem is that what is good for one nation isn’t always going to be good for another, even if they are close allies. Good diplomacy has always taken that into account and one nation has to find ways to make it into another nations interest to take it’s side against a common enemy. It’s just not realistic to think that nations will put aside their sovereign interest for the global good; that strikes me almost like an idealistic version of global communism (I’m not trying to provoke you or call you a commie- I’m just saying that I feel your vision is flawed because it relies on the goodwill of nations, just like communism is flawed as a political philosophy because it can’t work unless individuals give up their self interest for the common good)
Kim
This is a great article from the the Ripon Society website that I think relates to this discussion. It’s a conservatives’ view on relations between US and EU. I hadn’t seen this before Joe posted a link today to an interview on that website, and I ended up browsing around a bit. I found that this article provides a lot of evidence for something I wrote here recently; that Bush’s personality and ideology are red herrings for the real issues of our relations with Europe. It is true that they dislike him personally, but there are many other underlying causes of the trans-Atlantic rift, and these things have to be taken into account for our post Cold War foreign policy.
MvdG: I’d be very interested to hear your take on this, from a European perspective, if you have time.
Well, of course, I don’t think we need to put the interests of the rest of the world ahead of our own! You are right about good diplomacy- it makes it in another nation’s interest to agree with our goals, and advance them. But we haven’t had good diplomacy-we’ve had a series of ultimatums that have left us without the kind of international support that we need to face down our true enemies.
There has to be some give and take, and right now the degree of anti-US sentiment is a direct result of the lack of this. I think we did more good for our image in the Muslim world helping Pakistanis during the earthquake than we will ever be able to do trying to bring democracy to a culture that has no familiarity with it, and one whose religious customs vary so much with our own.
On that, I agree. But I wouldn’t want to go too far in the other direction either, all give and no take.
What you take is international goodwill.You build alliances and then honor them. 41 and 42 understood that-43 does not. 41 was able to assemble a strong coalition when he needed it- after Iraq invaded Kuwait, because he was an excellent diplomat. The State Dept and the Dept of Defense worked together-not at crosspurposes as they do now. There is rampant mistrust for the US because of the Cowboy diplomacy of the last 6 years. To be fair, 41 wasn’t perfect either- he encouraged the Shiites to rise up against Saddam, and then abandoned them. At least 20,000 were slaughtered due to his indecision. But 20,000 is better than 600,000 and counting.
Kim,
I agree with your criticisms; my point is that there were problems to overcome with European dissent from our views. Bush should have worked on a strategy to overcome the problems, but instead he took the advice of neocons who felt we could go it alone, so they did an end run around Europe.
CS: I am checking the link out now.
MvdG:
Glad you could take your attention away from other [ahem] important matters LOL
I have to admit that while reading the document you link to, I had to take a look at the, umh, thread you are referring to, every now and then.
warning in this comment some things might sound insulting to Americans. Firstly: that is not my intention. Secondly: I am not expressing my own opinion about certain matters, but I am trying to explain what I think many Europeans think.
Anyway: I read the document. One thing that came to mind is that the author is American, no? He has, at least, a very, very American outlook on things. He, for instance, quite disregards the US’s own role in the growing anti-Americanism in Europe. He just about considers it some kidn of conspiracy by European elites.
Funny enough, Elrod recently sent me an e-mail with an article attached to it, written by Europe’s leading American specialist. In his article, Kroes deals with anti-Americanism in Europe as well. This provides for somewhat different perspective. If you want to, I can send it to you.
What do I think of the document you link to? It has some merit. There is a lot of truth to it, but there is also a lot to it that is, umh, less accurate. He should have paid far more attention to the role the Bush administration plays in all of it for instance. Seemingly he does not realize that Clinton, for instance, was very popular here in Europe and that as a result, there was far less anti-Americanism here.
True: there is a lot of anti-Americanism here now, true Europe wants to become a superpower that will be able to check up on the US (which I find a good thing – as long as the alliance will not be cancelled), but it is also growing due to Bush: secret prisons, abu graib, gitmo, the new law, his entire attitude, ‘old europe, new europe’ comment, ‘with us or against us’, ‘axis of evil’, etc. etc.
In essence, I would say, Bush reinforces the general idea many Europeans have of Americans: as arrogant people not able to understand nuances. Cowboys. Win against all cost.
I could write an entire article on this. In fact, I will do so this weekend – in combination with before mentioned article written by Kroes.
Interesting, MvdG, and I’ll look for your article with the Kroes article. I see what you are saying and it fits with other information I’ve heard/seen. For example, recently at a dinner party I attended, a male conservative and female liberal who both frequently do business in Europe, were discussing the anti-Americanism there. They both related that EVERY time they meet with someone new there, the first question is “What do you think of Bush?” It seems to be a litmus test, and both of these individuals had different ways of handling it (the conservative said he tries to diplomatically explain that he has increasingly become dissatisfied with Bush’s policies while the liberal is more outspoken in her criticism). So, I get your point and I think you are right, but my view is that Bush puts the face on the particular characteristics that Europeans dislike and distrust about Americans. At the same time though, I think European leaders find this convenient because it allows them to pursue their own goals independently of what the US wants, and they can sort of ride the anti-Bush sentiment of their constituents. The only reason I think this is important to recognize, is not to excuse Bush because he has definitely widened the gap, but I do think the gap was there to begin with. I think that is important to recognize because I don’t think that having a congenial president is going to suffice; it may be true that the rift didn’t open up while Clinton was in office (and I’ll grant that his personality and policies had a lot to do with that) but at some point in time I believe that push would come to shove; that Europe would recognize a need to go its own way. Again, I see this as important for creating good policy in the future because we have to rethink the alliance and figure out how to redefine our mutual goals.
lol I can second that. That question will be asked to every American visiting Europe. Whether it’s the first, second or third question -> it will be asked. And I would go so far as to say that it actually is a litmus test: a way of deciding whether the person is ‘likable’, ‘reasonable’, worth talking to (i.e. not some arrogant American cowboy).
O, I agree completely. That is why I pointed it out: I believe that the article you link to is paying enough attention to one part of it, but too little to the other (Bush’s role in this all).
I am a European who believes that the EU should be a superpower. The United States is currently the only superpower in the world and I do not believe that this is in the best interest of the world (also not in the best interest of the US in the long run by the way).
You are also right about this “my view is that Bush puts the face on the particular characteristics that Europeans dislike and distrust about Americans.” You know what some of the remarks were after Bush was elected? “A stupid President for a stupid people” is one I heard quite frequently – again this is not my opinion, I am simply trying to explain the current culture here.
In the end, it also seems obvious to me that Europe and the US are both best of when they form a good, strong alliance. Yes, goals should be clear, but you should also not forget that – in the end – Europe consists out of different countries with different views. For instance, the French are not exactly popular in the Netherlands either. In fact, I would say, that France gives jack about Dutch interests. France is a former superpower, still dreaming about the days that it was a superpower and with the idiotic idea that it deserves to be a superpower.
Well, one quote in the article I linked to, I think made a good point about that:
In short, I think the US serves somewhat as a scapegoat (not that there aren’t very legitimate concerns too, and not that these concerns haven’t gotten much worse under Bush), but focusing on the “us against them” mentality makes it easier for Europe to brush over it’s internal disunity.
You know, again, there is some merit to this, but it is – again – obvious that you are American. You are reasoning like an American, not like a European. For instance, the Dutch government does not oppose the Americans at all. In fact I would like to ask you, why is it that certain countries fiercely opposed (belgium, germany, france) the US regarding the war against Iraq, while others publicly and actively supported it (GB, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Poland, andsoforth)?
That would not be in line with your reasoning.
Even regarding this ‘common’ ‘anti-American policy’ you do not seem to be aware of the grave differences of opinion within Europe.
(of course not personally against you)
CS — I mostly agree with MvdG’s perspective. I disagree that a congenial president won’t suffice- that is exactly what we need- someone to minimize the gap and put a new face on US-European relations. We will always have a divide of interests and culture, but as we have discussed that is what skillful diplomacy is all about. I think anti-Americanism is at an all-time high right now due to European unhappiness with unilateralism. Whoever comes to power after Bush will have to emphasize soft power over harsh ultimatums and the with us or against us mentality.
NATO and organizations like it should be strengthened- but Britons who are extremely unhappy with Blair’s close relationship with Bush may exert a lot of pressure for Britain to join the European Defense Force. I’m quite sure they don’t want to be a part of regime change in Iran. The loss of that close defense relationship may be another uncalculated loss from the Iraq fiasco.
The author comes out strongly against regionalism- and rejects the idea of the EU as a legal entity. But I don’t see what the Europeans are doing as any different than our attempts to form one region with Mexico and Canada. We have already started building a superhighway between America and Mexico. Wouldn’t we be seen as slightly hypocritical here?
CS- This may not be true in Europe, but it is definitely true in other countries—Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia for example. Of course anti-Americanism is not exactly new in Cuba. I honestly won’t vote for a presidential candidate with no foreign policy experience in the next election. Its a shame 43 didn’t learn anything from 41.
Yes, I agree with you on that; I don’t agree with all of the conlusions of the article, I just think it gives a perspective that isn’t often discussed.
I think that part of that was the differing self interests of each country (which was based on, in some cases being concerned about backlash from Muslim immigrants- obviously that concern is dealt with differently in the Netherlands vs. France, for instance; and business/economic interests)
I think you misunderstand a bit; I’m not saying that the anti-Americanism is not real, but I do think that in certain parts of Europe, it is being played up and encouraged by certain leaders in order to brush over their real reasons. I compare this to, for example, the way I view the two parties in the US fanning the partisanship here because it is easier to say that they are against the other party than to state what they are actually for. Does that make sense?
I also think that your examples of the way different countries split on support of the Iraq invasion probably says something about the degree of animosity toward the US and possibly the degree to which each respective country aspires for EU to achieve superpower status. Your point about France is interesting though, I will have to think more on that. Perhaps they see that their chance to achieve their former glory would be to lead the EU.
O, I am convinced of that.
Don’t you know how smaller countries are extremely suspicious of Germany but especially France within the EU?
We know that this is their goal: they want to be the leader of Europe. We are having none of that.
Also: Just to make this clear: I do agree to a degree with the view, but I think that it focuses too much on the ‘American point of view’ so to speak.
If one really wants to make a lasting document like that, one should work together with independent Europeans / European institutions to make a much better assessment.
Yes, I agree, to come to a comprehensive view that encompasses both sides of the story. I only advanced the article because I feel that this side isn’t often discussed; it seems as though it is all about Bush and US hegemony, but I think the rest needs to be considered too. My view is that Bush’s approach was very wrong under the circumstances, but I also think that any president under the circumstances would have found it difficult to convince some of the European powers to side with us. It’s as though there was a high hurdle to pass over, but Bush decided to knock it over instead of working on his hurdling skills.
CS -Good analogy. Only problem was that instead of getting the European countries to cooperate with us, he seems to have gotten their backs up. I know that he did send Condi over at the beginning of his second term to mend fences with the Europeans, but the resentments linger. Maybe instead of “with us or against us” he should have tried “we’re all in this together”to win support against the forces of terrorism. I believe he was trying to project strength- but the result is that he has put us in a weakened position in our alliances and with our enemies.
CS, Kim, Michael, from Rush to American diplomacy and European views of the US, now that’s what I call a far ranging conversation. LOL loved following every word.
Thanks, grognard. LOL, I guess we did get off on a tangent, didn’t we?
Thanks, Grognard! I was too engrossed in the discussion to realize how far OT we had strayed, LOL!