On Rush Limbaugh
In comment after comment around the blogosphere, I’ve noticed quite a few Rush Limbaugh’s fans saying that they’re incredibly disappointed in him for his coverage of the 2016 primary, and have abandoned him and his show. Some of them were lifelong (or at least decades-long) listeners.
I’m not a listener. I don’t like talk shows in general and very rarely tune in to Rush or anyone else, probably because I’d much rather read my information than hear it. I get impatient and easily bored with the slow pace of talk compared to reading. With reading I can pace myself—pay more attention to the items that interest me most, skim the others, and go fast or slow as I wish. With talk shows, other people set the rhythm, and the pace usually doesn’t feel right to me. Plus, I find that talk shows usually are more about the personality of the speaker than the issues.
So I’m hardly the best person to opine on whether Rush Limbaugh has been fair this season—whether he’s in the tank for Trump or not, or a betrayer of conservatism or not—although over the years I’ve become somewhat familiar with his show (and the shows of all the major radio hosts on the right) from listening for a few minutes or a half hour or so now and then to get a general feel for the style and message. What I really think about talk show hosts (not just Limbaugh, by any means) is that they are first and foremost in the business of getting ratings. And what pumps up ratings is not sober, intellectual analysis and evenhanded evaluation, it’s the spice of sensationalism, anger, accusations, humor, controversy, and cleverness. Talk shows are a business, and although the topic may be politics, business is business.
So I’m rather surprised that so many people seem so surprised at whatever it is that Rush Limbaugh is doing, or what they perceive him to be doing. For an example of what that might be, and how his disappointed ex-fans see him now, please read this post and some of the ensuing comments. In the incident being discussed there, Limbaugh apparently described Trump as having lied about what happened in the selection process of the delegates in Colorado, but added that the lie was planned in advance and effective, and therefore a “brilliant” populist move of Trump’s to fool and manipulate voters/supporters (that’s a paraphrase by me, not Rush’s actual words—for the actual quotes, go to the link).
Some people—the Rush defenders—are saying that doesn’t mean Limbaugh was praising that behavior of Trump’s, just that he was exposing it and explaining it. Others—the Rush critics—said that Limbaugh was saying the behavior was fine because it’s the way for Trump to win, and that this whole season Limbaugh has been defending whatever Trump has done in the guise of “explaining” him.
I was also surprised that neither the name “Machiavelli” nor the adjective “Machiavellian” has popped up in any of the discussions I’ve seen on the subject, because it seems to me that Limbaugh, by using words like “brilliant” to refer to Trump’s supposed strategy of losing in order to “win” through a bald-faced lie about what happened in Colorado, was using the word “brilliant” in the Machiavellian sense. And that brings up an old old quandry: how immoral can, or should, a politician be before he or she has crossed a line that means he/she should be roundly condemned?
That seems to me to be the heart of the matter. Is it wrong to purposely plan to lie like that (if you accept Limbaugh’s theory about Trump’s motive, which I don’t)—particularly about an opponent in your own party—in order to stir up populist anger in your favor? If Limbaugh is describing this in a neutral manner, doesn’t he have a duty to say whether it’s right or wrong, good or bad, in more than the pragmatic sense? In addition, how about the harm such a “winning” strategy might do to the conservative cause, and even to Trump’s manipulated and misled followers—in other words, to everyone except Donald Trump?
To me, that’s the biggest failing in Limbaugh—his lack of a moral judgment on what he says Trump is doing. Whether he thinks it’s perfectly fine, or whether he thinks it’s something a candidate shouldn’t do, he should make himself clear and not pretend the action has no moral valence.
Here’s a comment at that same RedState post that points out this problem:
Rush used to mock liberals who marveled at the brilliance of Bill Clinton’s lying. Rush has never been “neutral” with liars in previous campaigns.
I’ve not listened to Limbaugh enough to know whether that’s true, but I suspect it is (and other commenters in the thread said as much). I’m not naive; lying is certainly something that goes hand in hand with politics, but there are degrees of lies, seriousness of lies, types of lies, and targets of lies, and some lies are much worse than others. Being neutral and merely describing a lying technique and praising it as you do so seems to be a bit Machiavellian on Rush’s part, too:
Machiavelli believed that public and private morality had to be understood as two different things in order to rule well. As a result, a ruler must be concerned not only with reputation, but also must be positively willing to act immorally at the right times. As a political theorist, Machiavelli emphasized the occasional need for the methodical exercise of brute force or deceit including extermination of entire noble families to head off any chance of a challenge to the prince’s authority.
Scholars often note that Machiavelli glorifies instrumentality in statebuilding, an approach embodied by the saying “The ends justify the means.”
The right used to be fond of saying that such an “ends justifies the means” philosophy was one of the things that was wrong with the left. Yet it seems to be a universally appealing one—doesn’t it?—because many on the right appear to be embracing it these days.
Rush was damning Donald with poisoned praise.
By highlighting how devious and scheming Trump’s campaign was…
And then laying on he backhanded ‘compliment’ that being devious was “brilliant.”
Something SURE to stick in the craw of not-Trump voters.
Limbaugh’s explanations – which are a several times daily occurrence – often get conflated to be his opinion by whoever has decided to use him as foil that day.
They’re not …but it doesn’t matter really: everyone (both critics and fans) kind of take what they want from his prognostications.
And wit (and he is witty) is wasted on most.
That said, it seems to me that he has somewhat changed the tone – or color, if you will – of his comments that past few days, after the Colorado caucuses.
(Full disclosure: long time – since Rush-to-Excellence Tour of early ’90s – listener and “mind-numbed robot”, though very erratic for over a decade plus …but who tunes in much more often during elections. I “get” Rush; it’s not that hard when you have history lol.)
His explanations of “this is how things worked in Colorado” haven’t been sitting well with some Trumpies. (Which criticism from the worst trolls hasn’t been sitting well with him: at least, “my guess”.)
I detect a subtle shift to Cruz from his usual straddling the fence the past few days. (Could be wrong. Don’t think so, but not entertaining wagers on it.)
The clearest thing you can say about Rush is that he’s consistently anti-liberal. Period.
He’s also an 11th commandment guy.
And not stupid, business-wise.
In most elections, he clearly does not want to alienate a significant portion of his listeners by choosing sides.
(Unlike NRO, who have become #NeverTrump harpies …so: advantage Rush as far as business acumen.)
…still: “it seems to me” that I’ve been detecting a little impatience there with the trollier Trumpies.
This attempt to clarify merely my two bits (as a regular listener, Trump symp’, but still-not-too-disillusioned-politics-is-blood-sport-Cruz-guy …as primarily an anti-GOPe, it’s all win-win for me this primary).
The thing is that we are facing the most important election of our lives and the Dems have a horrible candidate and Rush is just playing games.
Disappointed.
Cornhead…
He’s just POISONED Donald’s complaint.
Sheesh.
He knows if he commits now he loses a large chunk of his listenership, which may already be the case. People are hearing what they want to hear. We are in uncharted waters.
The problem Trumpster faces is this:
He’s brilliant and organized enough to successfully navigate the niceties of the bankruptcy courts to come out like a stinking genius, but isn’t brilliant and organized enough to navigate the minutiae of a caucus process that was set in stone since September last year?
So, no, I don’t think this was a pre-planned lie. Think of it more as a coverup. Trump isn’t nearly as smart nor organized as he might want you to believe. So, to avoid facing that, it’s easier to say “stolen”, “corrupt”, “fixed”.
Remember that the rules of the game where laid down to make any outsider’s attempt hard. Cruz is navigating the system not because he’s an “insider”, but because his campaign has worked out what’s necessary for them to succeed.
If you need Rush or another talker to point out how Trump’s moral compass is broken, I’m sorry, I can’t help you. Other than my standard question to Trumpers:
What exactly is it about Trump that he’s done in the past that makes you think he’s an actual conservative?
Of course, Trump is correct: he could shoot someone on 5th avenue, and his core 30% wouldn’t find that objectionable.
I have been an off and on Rush listener for somewhere around 15 years. I consider him to be an entertainer with political and cultural insights. I also credit him with the ability to understand where the political wind (from both left and right) blows. And, he is conservative by nature of his upbringing and life experiences.
What I see as a big change this political season is his attitude towards Trump. While RL never endorses during the primary, he has provided a certain degree of cover for DJT. Yet, he knows Trump is not the least bit conservative. Rush is far from stupid, he knows Trump would be a disaster from the top of the ticket and all down the line.
Rush is trending carefully as a good chunk of his audience are trumpkins. He sold this show to investors years ago and needs to protect his ratings.
While working or traveling on sales trips I’ve listened to Limbaugh. That stopped about 2 weeks ago. The constant build up of Trump combined with the years of complaining about the GOP establishment has ended it for me. I can’t stand Levin or Savage but will occasionally listen to them. The only one with a personal decency and fair minded take is Tom Sullivan. But his show is slow paced and his voice puts you to sleep.
Laura Ingraham is the new leader of talk radio.
I R A Darth Aggie Says:
What exactly is it about Trump that he’s done in the past that makes you think he’s an actual conservative?
Trump supporters aren’t conservative, don’t want to be conservative, and generally spit on the term.
They don’t support Trump because he’s conservative, they support him because he’s a strongman who can make their revenge fantasies come true (they hope).
Laura Ingraham is a Trump supporter.
Rush and the other talkershow people live by appealing to emotions. What we need are people who will tell their audiences to slow down and think. Even if you agree with what they are saying, you are not expected to slow down so you can think strategically and tactically. They act as if when you pass a bill, Obama won’t veto it. They basically don’t understand how the constitution works. I guess many will be happy with tyrant Trump.
I think neo has put her finger on it: the disappointment with Rush comes from his avoidance of moral evaluation. When explanations of underhanded deeds without condemnation become routine, you’ve gone beyond neutrality into apologetics.
Trump’s tactics might be good for Trump, but they’re bad for the rest of the party. Rush is smart enough to know that.
Neo:
“The right used to be fond of saying that such an “ends justifies the means” philosophy was one of the things that was wrong with the left. Yet it seems to be a universally appealing one–doesn’t it?–because many on the right appear to be embracing it these days.”
Depends on your evaluation of and tolerance for the consequences of losing.
I’m afraid a lot of commenters on Limbaugh are really on thin ice. If one does not listen to him nor read his transcripts, how can one judge? By what others say about him?
Seems silly.
Not a regular listener.
Have heard about 15 minutes over the last couple of weeks.
What I have heard him say most recently was in effect that
– Colorado’s rules were long in place and not designed to benefit Cruz, but rather a member of the GOP establishment
– that a significant portion of Trump’s supporters need to come to grips with the fact that they are dealing with a Republican Party that existed before they just recently got there
– that the Party makes the rules, not recent arrivals who have no real idea how the party system works.
– that if The Donald’s people want to play in the game they need to learn the real rules.
As to the Redstate comment, I recall Limbaugh some years deriding the press, for a kind of moral relativism that made a game of Clinton’s lying, and which treated it in terms completely devoid of moral content.
Now, if you wish to claim that “liberals” is synonymous with “the mainstream press”, then I guess you can say what Redstate says without fear of contradiction.
But that is not what I recall.
I only briefly listen to Limbaugh when in my truck and my perception of him is the same as parker’s.
I’m not surprised at any lack of ethics on Trump’s part but I am disappointed in Cruz’s celebration of delegate sweeps in state primaries where the party’s base has no say in the voting. That is not democracy and I can see no way that it can be ethically supported.
The rules are the rules and I have no problem with Cruz acting more skillfully than his opponents. I do have a problem with his failure to condemn it.
I also have a problem with his apparent happiness with that arrangement. It’s very reminiscent of a lawyer getting a criminal off through a technicality and having no regret.
To my knowledge, Cruz hasn’t once condemned a state system that favors insider politics, the very thing he deplores in the Senate and condemns in the GOPe.
Now as I have stated just previously, I have not listened to much of Limbaugh recently. It is just that what I did listen to seemed miraculously relevant to this conversation. Unless of course he was saying the same things over and over again when I was not. LOL
But I think that if you reflect on it, Limbaugh’s past statements of his commitment and allegiance, have centered on his loyalty to conservatism” as he understands it. And I have heard him – years in the past – explicitly disclaim the Republican Party as his chief loyalty.
As for Trump, I think, from the little I have heard recently, that Limbaugh takes much the same position as some here: that Trump (and making very little in the way of deeply substantive judgments) is better than Hillary if it came to that. That many Trump supporters have legitimate grievances. That many Trump supporters are not longtime conservatives; and that they need to get a grip on themselves and get over the notion that they are entitled to run the Republican Party just because they showed up.
I believe it is the case that so many are outraged by the mere fact that Trump has gotten this far, or by his position on “inclusion”, that they would rather have a socialist run their lives, that live in a country where the chief executive of the Federal branch of government, will make them feel as though they are tacitly supporting bigotry.
Some people, religious conservatives included, seem to believe that if push comes to shove, the preservation of society per a utilitarian calculus, is more important than their personal liberty.
I cannot make sense of that, but there you have it.
I used to listen to Limbaugh regularly. I noticed that much of his material came from the same blogs I had read earlier in the day.
He was entertaining for awhile.
He lost me around 2012. I seriously believe that Limbaugh (and Mark Levin among others) did serious damage to he Republican Party–and since the GOP is the only pony that Conservatives have, thence to their own movement. So, in the case of Limbaugh, I began to question his true motives. I suspect that they are grounded in boosting Limbaugh. In the case of Levin, I suspect that he is an angry ideologue, who no politician can satisfy.
Ingraham is Coulter’s twin by another father. Both are drama queens and as constant as the wind. Any which way to pad the bank account.
Oldflyer:
I have felt since the 2012 campaign that Limbaugh and Levin have damaged the cause they purport to support.
“I’d rather read my information than hear it.” AMEN!
. . .or watch it on TV. Can’t stand the talking heads.
“What I really think about talk show hosts (not just Limbaugh, by any means) is that they are first and foremost in the business of getting ratings. And what pumps up ratings is not sober, intellectual analysis and evenhanded evaluation, it’s the spice of sensationalism, anger, accusations, humor, controversy, and cleverness. Talk shows are a business, and although the topic may be politics, business is business.”
I have long found talk show pundit Dennis Prager to be the most thoughtful of those that I have heard. None of the usual sensationalism, instead, sober intellectual analysis and evenhanded evaluation. His motto is that he values clarity over agreement.
Oldflyer,
I hear you, but I see a value to the chattering right, in that they provoke those on the right to create speed bumps for the gope. Hence, the Tea Party. The TP put Cruz into the senate and much of his grassroots support during the current campaign is the TP grassroots. Cruz is not a savior, as portrayed by bho or djt. He is just a very intelligent person who is a true small government Constitutionalist.
What Cruz labels “the Washington cartel” fears a Cruz POTUS. That tells me enough to know who to support. A Cruz nomination may well be futile, but drawing real battle lines is not something to avoid. To quote Neil Young, rust never sleeps. I will take confrontation over the limp wrist any time I have a choice.
it seems to be a universally appealing one–doesn’t it?–because many on the right appear to be embracing it these days.
when the public does not punish such behavior there is nothing to be gained by maintaining a weak position for no real reason that makes a iota of difference and has negative consequences.
WE the people are all too willing to ignore standards. but then again, those are old patriarchal standards and we were raised to ignore such standards as part of the new freedom of a certain class. you either have standards or you don’t, the breaking of some make others useless to maintain.
you want moral and upright behavior? go back to when family meant something, and bypass 1968
Geoffrey Britain Says: It’s very reminiscent of a lawyer getting a criminal off through a technicality and having no regret.
when called to the mattresses this is what he said, and all i could think was how his win is by kissing the establishment hacks, as that IS who he is referring to.
“Donald Trump’s campaign does not know how to organize on the grassroots, and so when the delegates are elected the real conservative activists show up, they elect delegates and we are winning those elections over and over and over again,” Senator Cruz explained to Sean. “I cannot help that the Donald Trump campaign does not seem capable of running a lemonade stand.”
Where people voting Trump wins
where the establishment votes Ted wins
its not grassroots as this is the people who are political powerbrokers in their areas. these are not grassroots people waking up and electing someone who is not part of that local system of politics.
maybe thats good.. but most think that if it was good, they wouldnt be upset and wanting replacements that these confound that as a solution
Artfldgr,
Family still means something, and for my extended family it means everything. Of course I recognize that for an urban majority the concept of “extended family” is so 19th century, but that does not mean it is extinct. I see extended families everywhere I look in my part of Iowa. NY values do not hold sway over a large portion of the country. 😉 Come to flyover country to see the predominant value of family.
Artfldgr,
You think the gope supports Cruz?! Time for rehab. Check yourself in asap.
OT, kind’a.
I would note that Cruz was on Hannity today, and it was an epic shout-fest (well, at times).
Kind of stunning.
If you can find it, you should give a listen.
Just one more thing “of a piece” with how different this primary is.
Ed Klein:
What I learned from reporting these stories is that Trump always has an ace in the hole.
In the case of the Republican convention, where he may arrive 50 to 100 votes short of the necessary 1,237, his ace will be the 136 unbound delegates.
Trump has already identified each one of these 136 free-to-vote-for-whomever-they-please delegates and has begun to woo them.
http://townhall.com/columnists/edklein/2016/04/19/trumps-ace-in-the-hole-n2150898
GB,
You want Cruz to condemn the process? A political party is a private enterprise. It sets its own rules and changes said rules as it sees fit. You or trump or artfldgr or feel the bern may not like the rules, so what? Form your own party. Set your own rules. Otherwise, sing Cry Me a River. I am sure you know the difference between a democracy and a republic. Rules exist in a republic to prevent the mob rule of a temporary majority.
I’ve never listened to talk radio. There’s a certain level of affectation that usually infects the “broadcast voice” which I find difficult to abide.
A few years ago I often read Hugh Hewitt transcripts, especially those featuring Mark Steyn, but those days are gone.
Yes, yes artfldgr the master deal maker trump has the convention delegates by the balls. Its all over, we on the right welcome our idiot trumpster overlords. Sheesh. If you have not yet realized djt’s only purpose in winning the nomination is to insure hrc wins, you are clueless. The only question i$ what i$ hi$ payoff. Double $hee$h.
Otherwise, you must admit djt is deranged. He can not win in the general, in fact it will be a landslide should that come to pass. Oh, lets just burn it down and secure a ‘progressive’ utopia.
Parker:
Regarding Geoffrey and Art you nailed it. Well done.
parker,
How can a man of principle do otherwise, when a process violates the very principles he champions? Political parties are far more than simply private enterprises. When a party’s rules violate our republic’s foundational principle of “consent of the governed”, they are unjust rules and demand revision.
Ted Cruz has to operate within the rules as they currently exist but as a candidate who champions constitutional principles, fundamentally at odds with voter absent primaries, he has an obligation to speak out against them. Otherwise he forfeits his claim to be a man of principle.
Ted Cruz is easily astute enough to realize this but like all of us, he has “feet of clay”. His response to Hannity indicates a man who is justifying his actions upon the pragmatic ‘principle’ that the end (survival of the republic) justifies the means (manipulation of the system). I can forgive him that very human foible but I will not pretend that a betrayal of principle is meaningless.
BTW, rules do exist in a Republic to prevent mob rule. However mob rule is not the case, neo has repeatedly cited poll after poll that shows a decided minority of republicans supporting Trump. That the primary process is so dysfunctional that Trump could win the nomination with but 35% support is a condemnation of that process not an excuse for a refusal to acknowledge that dysfunction.
GB,
Correct me please if I am misunderstanding your words, but “a man of principle do otherwise”…? Are you referring to Cruz or trump? Are you so naive to believe a political party is subject to your understanding of ‘principles’? And with regard to mob rule, the trump mob over all has, with crossover votes from dems, constitued a majority mob in the gop primaries/caucuses.
Geoffrey Britain: Perhaps you can inform us which article or amendment to the Constitution even says the President is to be elected directly by the people?
Trump is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a man of principle. I am naive enough to believe that a man who bases his reputation and candidacy upon support for constitutional principles has an obligation to act in accordance with them.
This is not about the Republican party’s, both state and national, failure to conduct it’s procedures in accordance with the constitutional principle of “the consent of the governed”, this is about Ted Cruz’s failure to acknowledge the party’s failure to do so. An attitude of, ‘oh well, that’s just the way it is…’ doesn’t ‘cut it’. It doesn’t cut it, when Trump does it and, it doesn’t cut it when Cruz does it.
Yes, Trump’s mob has constituted a majority in the GOP primaries. Again, that reveals a dysfunctional system, not an excuse for Cruz to refuse to acknowledge that dysfunction.
GB,
I believe you are a stout fellow. I also believe you have, well, to be honest, stepped over the line. Nonetheless, I wish you no harm, and instead wish you happiness.
jon baker,
As we all know, it says no such thing. It does however presume that, individual exceptions aside, the vast majority of electors will honor the consent of the governed’s expressed will and not act according to their whim. This is what Adams meant by a “moral and religious people” whose representatives honor the very reason for their office’s existence.
GB,
You are stating that Cruz must state that the various State rules are corrupt per your vision of what is ‘fair and democractic’ Pardon me,for my failure to adhere to your definition. Why not go total artldger?
parker,
And I regretfully perceive you to fail to see the line that Cruz has crossed. I still support Cruz, I simply perceive him to have fallen short of the very standards he himself professes to champion. I suspect that failure is not the result of ambition but heartfelt desperation to save America from the gravest of mistakes, which the election of any other current candidate would certainly consist. It is not an egotistical motivation on Cruz’s part but an accurate assessment that, of the current field, only he stands fully for Constitutional governance. That is a powerful and seductive argument to look the other way. Yet IMO, it is a counter-productive position to take, Cruz is loosing support over this, when all he had to say is, ‘I think that the voters should decide, not the delegates dictate but we all have to operate within the rules as they stand’.
I strongly disagree with art as to which, Cruz or Trump is the better choice. I simply ask Cruz to live up to what he claims to stand for… while understanding that we all occasionally stumble and fall.
It is not my “vision” of what is democratic and fair. Rather it is what is logically consistent with what Cruz himself champions. In this matter, he’s acting in contradiction to what he himself champions and, I strongly suspect doing so because he fears, perhaps rightly, that it is the only path to the nomination. Cruz rightly sees that he’s the only candidate pointing to the Constitution as the means to America’s deliverance from the approaching abyss.
What he evidently doesn’t see is that you cannot save people from themselves or learn their lessons for them. And because he doesn’t accept this admittedly hardest of lessons, he’s justifying his own betrayal of the very principles he champions.
America has to choose Cruz as their President. He cannot, for their own good, manipulate people into a fait accompli.
Hmm.
I seem to recall the two parties -Democrat and Republican – being the only actors on some commission that sets the rules for televised debates.
Which is why the libertarian candidate rarely gets on them , and Green or other party candidates are NEVER shown on TV to the voters in this alleged “democratic” “republic” (aka oligarchy).
That doesn’t seem like a function that ‘private’ POLITICAL parties should have any say whatsoever in.
Hmm. In most states, maybe all states, the two parties, or the dominant of the two parties basically write the ballot rules, almost always sitting up quite extensive legal and financial barriers for any third parties.
That’s not something that a ‘private’ organization should have any say in doing.
It seems to me that some here are in quite a bit of denial of just how much the system is currently rigged against any change, and how entwined in the current power structure (and thus in need of regulation if reform from the voters does not happen) the two parties are. This system is no longer viable.
Trump is a reaction to that.
1. I remember listening to Rush back in the early to mid 1990s, and there is a change between then and now. Rush used to be funnier, and full of the right sort of zeal, and now he sounds more bombastic, and tends to go off on rants.
2. The problem is not Rush himself, it is rather that anyone would find it hard to deal with the last couple decades of events. The country has moved to the Left, and the Democrats have attained their goals with social and fiscal policy, with big government, and with their preferences with foreign policy.
3. And what does the Right have? The last Republican President had an unpopular war and a fiscal crisis, with only temporary tax cuts. Plus, political capital was wasted, just thrown away on immigration “reform” in 2006, just as it was yet again in 2013.
4. Republican majorities were elected in 2010 and 2014–yet there seemed to be no visible, tangible benefit. There were various scandals with Obama and Hillary, ones that would have seriously damaged Republican office-holders had they done the same thing, but the “opposition party” never capitalized on them. And promises for greater effort later when not much has been done now just ring hollow.
5. So it’s not Rush, it’s not Trump, it’s really all these events. People are concerned about terrorism, foreign policy, immigration, government policies, and America’s place in the world. They want someone to address their concerns.
6. And with all that has happened in this primary season, I’m thinking that Republican office-holders, who once thought government shut-downs or Congressional investigations or citations for contempt or even impeachment all had to be taken off the table, are now wishing they had just let Obama veto one of the budgets and shut things down. A few months of negative media coverage in 2014 or 2015 would have been far better than this.
Andrew Wilkow. The Wilkow Majority. 125 Patriot channel. SiriusXM. Same slot as Limbaugh.
I’m a Rush fan from 1992 on and a current subscriber to his podcast. It comes up for renewal this month. I won’t be resubbing.
I am currently nauseated by the sight of conservatives bending over backwards to be neutral in a race between an uninformed, unqualified Clinton Democrat and a thoughtful, consistent conservative.
Rush is by no means the worst offender in this (Hannity has disgraced himself, Ingraham as well), but it’s bad enough that I’ll be taking a break from him for a while, even though I continue to find his show funny and sometimes insightful. The more open Trumpers are just dead to me. I’d as soon watch Colbert.
This pretty much describes where I’m at, too. Still voting for him. But all that shiny I was hoping I was seeing is pretty much thoroughly tarnished at this point.
I just wanted him to answer the damn questions. And I’m a supporter for gawd’s sake. It’s not like he couldn’t have given a brilliant answer. It would have cost nothing to throw ’em a bone.
But no: let’s just keep calling the other guys supporters clueless moronic twits. And worse. On a national radio show where millions of them are listening.
Because. Yeah. That’s sure to work.
And. Even if they are (i.e., clueless), you need their votes this fall. Which should be so obvious it goes without saying.
Not this year though. No one seems to have any “inner angels”.
Everyone seems to think bat-sh!t crazy FTW is a thing.
I have my doubts about how that’s gonna play out for anyone claiming the prize in Cleveland at this point.
Rush HIGHLIGHTS the falsity of Donald’s assertions — and that is beyond comprehension ?
The only thing missing from Rush’s comments — a ‘/sarc’ tag.
Have IQs really plunged so much so ?
The problem with most talk shows is that what is good for their ratings is not necessarily good for the country.
Things you need to know about Rush in the context of this election season: (1) he is a true conservative (a classical liberal); (2) he knows (and has stated) that Cruz is the only true conservative in the race; and (3) he believes that the Left is a greater threat to this country and to Western Civilization in general than Donald Trump could ever be. His concern is that the Left be defeated. If it has to be done with Trump, then he will support Trump if Trump is nominated.
Everyone arguing that procedures and process should be ignored in order to reach a substantive result that they like “because democracy” should remember that is exactly what Obama has been doing, unchecked, for over seven years. Asking Cruz to apologize for knowing the process and using it to achieve the result he wants is ludicrous. His ability to maneuver through the procedures in order to achieve the substantive result he wishes is exactly what we need in D.C. right now.
People who constantly moan about the votes of the people being the only legitimate means of determining a party’s candidates have not thought through their own argument. The United States is a Union of the States, each of which has its own sovereignty. The very structure of our country is to separate powers and devolve them closer to the People, not in a single manner but in a variety of ways as chosen by the States.
Parties are separate entities with their own rules at both the national level and at their state affiliates. That’s a feature, not a bug! There may be no single “best” way to manage parties, it is better to have a portfolio approach such that each state party tries its own path, some will succeed better than others, some work for their State’s circumstances but would be inappropriate for another State. Caucuses, conferences, open primaries, closed primaries, we test them all.
Making the “most votes wins it all” argument leads to the logical conclusion of governance by referendum. After all, it’s the will of the people! See how badly that works out in practice. No need to even elect a President!
The most foolish arguments Trump and Sanders have both made is that it is illegitimate that parties restrict who votes in their primaries in many states. Well, how about registered Republicans vote in Republican primaries and Democrats in Democratic primaries.
Why should there be cross-voting, or Independents picking and choosing which party to make a nominating decision for? Sorry, if you are not committed enough to either Party to actually register on time, you should not be trying to have a say on who that Party nominates. Start your own party if you need to, don’t try to dictate what other parties must do. Or maybe I should get a vote in your state’s elections even though I’m not a resident. See how senseless that argument is?
The Trump people have selective math skills. The majority of Republican voters have rejected Mr Trump, yet he’s supposed to be anointed somehow? OK, let’s accept their arguments, and cut back his delegate share to the same percentages he has had of the primary voting so far. Oops, math is hard, eh, Trump people?
AntiLeftist @ 8:02,
That is exactly what I believe. I will in the general election vote for either Cruz or Trump because I perceive the Left to be the far more certain threat.
I am NOT arguing that “procedures and process should be ignored” and agree that Cruz has to work within the rules as they currently exist.
I’m certain that everyone here realizes what Obama has been doing. I’m less in agreement that substantive results can be attained by Cruz through “knowing the process” because “using it” requires Congressional cooperation, which he is NOT going to get, since Cruz’s foremost goal of constitutional governance is antithetical to the interests of both the Left AND the GOPe.
Given that reality, having a substantive majority of the public supportive of a President Cruz will be critical to Cruz successfully reaching his goals. Which means NOT alienating those supporters of Cruz who are actually opposed to what the Left and RINOs are doing.
That is WHY refusing to criticize that part of the process that is in opposition to what Cruz professes to support is so counter-productive. It is hypocritical behavior and in this election, hypocrisy is the kiss of death to a candidate who professes to stand for the Constitution.
“The majority of Republican voters have rejected Mr Trump, yet he’s supposed to be anointed somehow?” Ed
Who here, in this thread… has argued that Trump should be ‘anointed’, contrary to his vote total? It is how the delegates are selected wherein the problem lies and for me, Cruz’s evident delight in it. That directly contradicts, in a fundamental way, what he professes to stand for… parties must be based in the “consent of the governed” otherwise they forfeit their validity because their purpose determines who governs us, either they or us.
Geoffrey Britain, first, Cruz stands for the rule of law above all else. In order to get to the “consent of the governed,” you need to follow certain procedures. Cruz knows them and has followed them. Second, the rules are the rules. They were established last year, I believe, with respect to Colorado. Shouldn’t Trump and his supporters have educated themselves on the rules of the process as Cruz did? What I hear you saying is that you believe Cruz should have objected to the process because Trump and his supporters didn’t understand it. Is that right?
Furthermore, this constant drum beat that nobody likes Cruz, he’s cheating, all he is is a slimy lawyer, blah, blah, blah will be gone if and when Trump is gone and Cruz will have an opportunity to talk directly to the voters over the heads of the GOP cronies. I think you will be surprised at how easy it will be for Trump supporters WHO ACTUALLY LISTEN to switch their allegiance.
AntiLeftist,
Reread my prior comments, I have argued that Cruz has to play by the rules as currently formulated.
It is his refusal to acknowledge that the rules in states like CO, where the voters have no say and the elite decide for whom they may vote is a direct contradiction of a fundamental constitutional principle, “consent of the governed” wherein my disappointment in Cruz lies.
And “procedures” that violate that fundamental principle cannot result in the consent of the governed because such rules are antithetical to that principle.
NO, I am NOT saying is that I believe Cruz should have objected to the process because Trump and his supporters didn’t understand it. I am saying that a man of principle would have immediately acknowledged that those rules were antithetical to the principles that he insists that he supports.
Geoffrey Britain, “the elite” in Colorado and in other states is the grassroots, those party-affiliated people who care enough about their party and their country to get involved. They are not the apathetic independents and non-involved citizens who see somebody on TV and suddenly decide they want to make sure that celebrity/candidate gets the party’s nomination. What is so hard to understand about that? There is no inconsistency here other than the application of logic.
First, the notion that all the state parties must follow the same procedure in selecting a nominee is so anti-republican a notion that I wonder if its advocates know which party they’re talking about.
Second, the idea that there is some hidden, secret GOP establishment in Washington making all the rules is balderdash. The “GOP Establishment” is made up of people who are willing to sacrifice their time and money to work for the party, not people who show up once every four years to vote in the primary and bitch about how unfair it is. You want to change the party rules? Show up at a county party meeting with a couple of friends, be willing to work, and you’ll BE the Establishment.
Finally, I don’t know the inner motivations of Ingraham, Coulter, Limbaugh, et al, who are supporting Trump, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it weren’t because they know a “real” conservative can’t be elected in this country. We found that out in 1964, and the educational indoctrination system and the media have become much more leftist and anti-American since then.
I think the reason for Trump support among right-wing pundits and conservatives was best explained by a guy I heard on Fox last night, I believe he was a New York State GOP leader and/or Trump campaign staffer. “Hillary knows how to defeat Cruz. She’s got a playbook for Cruz. She doesn’t have a playbook for Trump. She doesn’t know what he might do.”
Richard Saunders:
You skipped over Ronald Reagan in your history of elections since 1964. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t a RINO or progressive republican. Not a perfect conservative but head and shoulders above most since others in recent history.
Disabuse yourself of the fantasy that Limbaugh is supporting Trump. He is not. Limbaugh has made it perfectly clear that the only person he is “supporting” is the Republican nominee.
If Cruz is the nominee, it will be a beautiful thing to watch him apply disinfectant to all the poisonous Leftist tropes, one by one, systematically, in a way that even the SEIU, BLM and OWS goons can understand. If Trump is the nominee, I hope he will at least afford us the entertainment of turning his bombastic venom on Hillary in the months preceding her election.
Show up at a county party meeting with a couple of friends, be willing to work, and you’ll BE the Establishment.
That’s what the Tea Party did. The Left and the Republican traitors crushed them. Remember that.
It is his refusal to acknowledge that the rules in states like CO, where the voters have no say and the elite decide for whom they may vote is a direct contradiction of a fundamental constitutional principle, “consent of the governed” wherein my disappointment in Cruz lies.
The Founding Fathers tolerated slavery because they preferred to take things in step. Independence and nation hood first, then you can argue about slavery and freeing them.
Idealists who try to get everything, usually fail and end up burning.
Ymarsakar:
You write that “the Left and the Republican traitors crushed” the Tea Party. But that is an exaggeration.
The Left fought the Tea Party, and they fought dirty. From the start, with no evidence, they claimed the TP was racist. It was picked up by the MSM, and repeated and repeated, and many people believed it. But still, the TP managed to win a lot of elections with its candidates. And in fact, Ted Cruz was one of the big TP candidates, and has remained loyal to them. Right now, he is one of two front-runners for the presidency (Rubio was a TP candidate, too, but he went against them with his Gang of Eight foray, although he has been otherwise on their side). I don’t see that as the TP being “crushed.” In fact, they’ve been quite successful for a relatively new political movement.
The Left (Obama’s/Lerner’s IRS) did try to “crush” the TP, and did put a big big dent into them in 2012. That was the biggest “crushing” they received, after the MSM/left “racist” charge. But they are not “crushed.”
As for the “Republican traitors,” they were not “traitors.” They were and are Republicans who aren’t all that conservative and haven’t supported the TP or its candidates. “Non-supporters” who criticize a group and don’t agree with it or support it are not necessarily “traitors.”
OM — Reagan won not because he was a conservative, but because his name recognition and likability were off the charts. I can’t think of anybody around today who comes close. If you find him or her, please let me know. We almost had one in 1996 with Colin Powell. Yes, he’s a Rockefeller Republican, but at least he would have prevented Obama’s novelty and white guilt from getting him elected.
Ymarsakar: I was just listening to Mark Helperin (the novelist, not the Newsweek correspondent) being interviewed by Dennis Prager. He pointed out that the Left picked the right target and successfully occupied it — the educational system (which, of course, produces the MSM). I don’t know if it will ever be possible again to elect a conservative, or to put conservative policies in place, because of the Left’s control of education and the MSN.
Richard Saunders:
I agree about education, the place where the Gramscian march got the most bang for its buck (other places: press, entertainment and the arts, religious establishment). That takeover of education has been going on for at least a century, and it could take a century to undo, but I’ve never noticed that sort of patience on the right. The left is very very patient.
In addition, I think Reagan had a highly unusual combination of factors, and his likability was one of the keys ([perhaps THE key) to his electoral success. But he can’t be re-created; he was rare. In recent years, the right has ignored likability and pretended that mere conservative values would do it. It will not.
This year, the most likable candidate was almost undoubtedly Rubio. Although he wasn’t/isn’t Reagan, who is? Rubio consistently beat Hillary in polls, too. The right rejected him because of the Gang of Eight thing, which he had pretty much repudiated but they didn’t trust him. Although he was not my leading candidate, I very much supported him and would have been fine with his nomination because I think he would have beaten Hillary in the general (likability!) and I think he would govern as a conservative.
Instead, we’ve got this mess.