Obama Attacks Rush Limbaugh, but Prostrates Himself to America’s Enemies
Spot on post by Jay Nordlinger at NRO, both his article and his follow-up at The Corner:
Readers have made some points about my Rush Limbaugh bit in Impromptus today, and a few of these points, I forgot to make myself. In particular, I should have noted this: One of the creepiest, most disturbing things about the “war on Rush” — particularly as orchestrated from the White House? Limbaugh is a private citizen. A reader wrote, “The same people who gasped because the FBI surveilled John Lennon are more than happy to have government employees — including Emanuel and Gibbs — conduct a campaign to demonize and diminish a radio personality for political purposes.”
Rush is a big boy, and he can handle it. But still . . . There is something creepy about bringing the weight of the government down on a radio host, even if that host is prominent, influential, and brave.
Couldn’t President Obama save this heaviness for Ahmadinejad, Assad, Kim Jong Il, and other real villains?
Also, weren’t we supposed to have a new kind of politics in the Obama era? Change and all that? A discarding of the bad old ways? And here we have Carville and Begala . . .
Well, let that same reader talk about it: “So who’s working on the Rush campaign? Perhaps the two most execrable individuals in American politics, Carville and Begala.”
That’s putting it a little strongly, but, still, that’s putting it — and the Obama era doesn’t seem so terribly new, except for the galloping socialization of the country.
I made some of these same points directed at AllahPundit at HotAir:
Why the fixation on Rush as a “private citizen”? The idea, I take it, is that Obama’s bringing the enormous power of the presidency to bear on a poor, defenseless Joe Public, but Limbaugh’s anything but defenseless (as today’s debate challenge proves) and considerably more powerful, I think we’d all agree, than the average congressman who would be considered fair game as a public official. If the White House had picked him out of a phone book or was rooting around in his trash, that’d be an egregious breach of privacy, but he’s one of the most powerful people in American media, with a following in the millions, and they haven’t done anything untoward (yet?). In fact, strictly speaking, they’re not “going after” him at all. They’re going after the GOP, to tar them by association with Rush and they’re willing to inflate his influence to do so. It’s Republicans who are suffering from having to thread the needle between defending Limbaugh and rejecting the “I want him to fail” rhetoric. What harm has Rush suffered? His stature’s never been greater, as he himself acknowledges right here.
Take all this and substitute MICHELLE MALKIN in all places you reference RUSH and answer your own questions as I asked you in Ed’s thread on this. If the Federal government was trashing Michelle Malkin, misrepresenting her, smearing her and then propping her up as the leader of the GOP to tar and feather them with a false caricature of Michelle Malkin, would you be so quick to just throw your boss under the bus?
Michael in MI on March 4, 2009 at 5:23 PM
I’m saying he can handle himself, as can Michelle, and he did a fine job of it here. I concede there’s a debate to be had about how much influence someone would need to be able to have a “fair fight” with the White House, but I think a guy with 20 million listeners qualifies. Michelle probably doesn’t.
Allahpundit on March 4, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Being able to handle himself is not the issue, AllahPundit. Something isn’t just or unjust simply because the object of the attack can handle oneself. The onus is on the Administration.
It’s like a man hitting a woman. A man should *never* hit a woman, no matter whether or not she can ‘handle herself’. A gentleman simply does not do that.
Same thing with the Federal government. It is above the dignity of the Federal government to be attacking-smearing-making fun of media members. It’s a matter of dignity and unofficial ethics and class and respect for the position of authority.
I really can’t figure out why you don’t understand that, other than you just don’t like Rush Limbaugh so your view is tainted.
Michael in MI on March 4, 2009 at 5:35 PM
And this was my contribution to Ed Morrissey’s great take on this at HotAir:
But first, spot-on, Ed Morrissey. Spot-on analysis. This is an attack, NOT a “promotion”. When the Left smears Michelle Malkin and misrepresents her views and then “promotes” her as the leader of the Conservative movement with the purpose of discrediting Michelle AND all Conservatives, only the naive would call that a “promotion” that helps her.
When the White House, the mass media, the Democrats and the Left are taking everything you say completely out of context, smearing your message, misrepresenting everything you say and then propping up THAT as representative of you and your message, I don’t see how AllahPundit considers that a help to Rush Limbaugh.
What Rush Limbaugh does is what AllahPundit describes. He shines a light on the Democrats and the Left’s message, he plays their speeches in full context, he reads their idiotic op-eds in full context and then goes on to explain what they mean, using their own words in full context. That is NOT what the Left, mass media, White House and Democrat Party is doing with Rush.
The Left smears their opponents and then presents that message as representative of their opponent.
I’d like to know how AllahPundit would feel if this were the Left, President and Democrats going after Michelle Malkin in the same way. Would he say that smearing Michelle Malkin and misrepresenting her views was propping her up and making her more popular and would be a good thing for her website and reputation? What if the Left-President-Democrats decided to say that everyone on the right was represented by the homophobic, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, Bible-thumping, bigoted Michelle Malkin? Would AllahPundit just turn around and say that Michelle Malkin was not a private citizen and the Left-President-Democrat Party had every right to attack her like that? And then he would blow it off as he is doing with the attack on Rush?
Michael in MI on March 4, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Their motivation is nothing more or less than exploiting the fact that MICHELLE MALKIN is unpopular (or so they believe) with most of the country. If that’s true, it’s MICHELLE MALKIN’s fault, not theirs. They’re not insulting HER, they’re simply promoting HER to leverage that unpopularity against the GOP. If it’s untrue, then they’ve shot themselves in the foot by raising the profile of a WOMAN who might turn the country against them.
Here’s the bottom line: The only sure winner in all of this is MICHELLE MALKIN HERSELF, because this is bound to increase HER influence. That’s why it’s bizarre that so many of you are taking offense. If you truly believe that MICHELLE MALKIN is conservatism’s best messenger, then you should be euphoric over the free publicity SHE’s getting out of this. In fact, Peter Daou (a lefty) over at the Huffington Post is wringing his hands for precisely that reason.
Allahpundit on March 4, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Now, consider that statement and consider the way that the Left “promotes” Michelle Malkin and her conservative message. They don’t “promote” her in an intellectually honest way, explaining her beliefs and values and principles in context. They smear her, and then promote THAT as what Michelle Malkin represents. They work to marginalize her and ALL conservatives by putting up a completely bastardized version of Michelle’s views — an thus the views of conservatives — and then use that to turn people off to not only Michelle, but to all conservatism in general.
THAT is the effort that is going on now, AllahPundit. And the fact that you and many others cannot see that is very disheartening, to say the least.
Michael in MI on March 4, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.