Patterico's Pontifications

3/30/2009

Patterico’s Shameful History of Attacking Rush Limbaugh

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:03 am

Andrew Klavan in the L.A Times:

If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration’s recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That’s the likelihood; here’s the certainty: You’ve never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh no, you haven’t. Whenever I interrupt a liberal’s anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: “I’ve heard him!”

On further questioning, it always turns out that by “heard him,” he means he’s heard the selected excerpts spoon-fed him by the distortion-mongers of the mainstream media. These excerpts are specifically designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh’s show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.

Putting aside any quibbles about the meaning of Rush’s recent comments, I agree with Klavan that, if you’re going to criticize someone, you should do them the favor of listening to their actual words.

I thought about this recently when a reader wrote me and asked:

Patrick: Just what is it about Rush that you dislike? . . . [T]here seems to be something in his personae that just has gotten under your skin?

Not at all. How could someone ask me that, when I have a long history of defending this man on my site?

If you’re going to criticize my attitude towards Rush, maybe you should do me the favor of looking at my actual words. Let me briefly set forth some of the history of my mentions of Rush Limbaugh on this site:

In August 2003, I attacked the Fairness Doctrine as the “Hush Rush” doctrine.

In April 2004, I praised the Dallas Morning News for noting that liberal media bias is not just a figment of Rush Limbaugh’s imagination.

In August 2005, Rush read from a piece I had published in the Los Angeles Times. I memorialized this proud moment on the blog.

In October 2006, I defended Limbaugh against an outrageous attack perpetrated on him by Glenn Greenwald.

In October 2007, I defended Limbaugh against a phony Tim Rutten attack regarding the use of the phrase “phony soldiers.”

In January 2008, I noted that Rush had mentioned an issue that I had done some work to popularize on this blog: thermostat madness, in which the government of California had arrogated to itself the right to control your thermostat in your home.

In February 2008, I mocked John McCain as indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton — in part because he was hated by Rush Limbaugh. That same month I busted Bill Maher for making the outrageous comment that he wished Rush Limbaugh had croaked from Oxycontin.

In September 2008, I boasted that the term “Tasergate,” which had originated on my site, had been used on the Rush Limbaugh program.

In October 2008, Rush read from a DRJ post on the site, which caused a bit of a meltdown with the site, .

In November 2008, I defended Rush against an unfair set of attacks by L.A. Times columnist James Rainey.

My valued guest blogger Jack Dunphy defended Rush in February in a spirited fashion.

In March of this year, I mocked David Frum for his unnecessarily personal attacks on Limbaugh.

Sometime after that came my posts about Rush’s “I hope he fails” formulation. In my first post on the issue, I said that “he articulates conservative principles very well” and added: “I love hearing the guy hold forth. I wish him all the success in the world for his radio program.” In my next post I added the observation: “Rush obviously doesn’t want to see Americans suffer.”

But, I argued, “he sacrificed clarity for controversy.” I also noted that Democrats had no right to be snooty on this issue, as they had said they wanted Bush to fail. (I believe this post was read on Mark Levin’s show.)

I’m sick of explaining why I thought Rush didn’t express himself in the best manner. I have made it clear that, in my view, “Speakers have no responsibility to self-censor to prevent unreasonable and bad faith misinterpretations of their words.” So don’t tell me that I’m covering for those who wish to distort Rush’s words. I’ve been quite clear I’m out to do no such thing.

I think my track record merits a defense, with links. Because I keep reading about how I hate the guy — even from my own readers like the one who e-mailed the question above — and I don’t. I don’t hate him. I have been a defender of Rush Limbaugh for almost 5 years on this blog. My track record is clear.

89 Comments

  1. and yet you hate Rush….. what’s up with that?

    /white smoke %-)

    Comment by redc1c4 (9c4f4a) — 3/30/2009 @ 12:34 am

  2. Why so many backflips and somersaults to prove you don’t hate Rush? Getting death threats? This just shows that any conservative who criticizes Rush is blacklisted. Off to re-education camp with you, Patterico!

    Comment by a giant slor (83827f) — 3/30/2009 @ 1:09 am

  3. Well, for what it’s worth, my reading of your posts on the topic suggested exactly what you say here…that you think Rush is a valid and potent force for the conservative voice, BUT, that by not paying at least some greater attention to clarity of meaning that he actually detracts from the potential impact of his message. And that you don’t want to see that happen.

    Yes?

    Comment by Steve B (42224f) — 3/30/2009 @ 3:21 am

  4. Patterico,

    Limbaugh will always have detractors. If you have gained detractors that means you have made your mark. You are in good company with Limbaugh.

    For all our resident trolls who wish to suggest that conservatives are kowtowing to Rush, I recommend you try a new theory. That one is so played!

    Comment by Brian (f7710b) — 3/30/2009 @ 3:29 am

  5. I find Limbaugh and Coulter and their ilk are as much in the business of selling themselves as any ideology. Rush’s ego and attitude toward women are particularly irritating for me. YMMV, however. Just because I share some political DNA with people doesn’t mean I have to like them.

    Comment by Aron (f3bcff) — 3/30/2009 @ 3:50 am

  6. I neither hate nor love Rush. He is entertaining at times.
    I believe that he has been hypocritical about drug policies. I believe he was a borderline bush apologist, and he could be very helpful to American families if he would jump on the “fairtax” bandwagon. he refuses.
    what gives?
    he should protest to his puppet masters. the illusion of our freedom would be enriched.

    Comment by jt (51e707) — 3/30/2009 @ 3:53 am

  7. Well anyone saying you hate someone because you disagree with something they say is an idiot. IMHO
    If that was true how would anyone stay married for longer than it took to sober up?

    Comment by Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 3/30/2009 @ 4:03 am

  8. It sounds like people have been distorting your words.

    What’s up with that?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/30/2009 @ 4:19 am

  9. I find this whole Rush discussion hilarious. ANybody who listens to Rush for 5 minutes knows he doesn’t want the country to fail. If you wanted the country to fail you wouldn’t speak out against card check or carbon taxes or the stimulus bill. You would talk about other things knowing that the previous mentioned intiatives would doom this country. I get mad at Rush because I think he is actually helping the more moderate Democrats in their opposition to these proposals. If it wasn’t for Rush, maybe we could return to the good old Carter days. His influence may prevent that from happening.

    Comment by TomT (ce2d63) — 3/30/2009 @ 5:38 am

  10. On a side note, does anybody else find it troubling from a scientific, philosophical, and spiritual aspect that the whole Earth Hour affair was an embrace of darkness. Is this a metaphor for the whole environmental movement?

    Innovation/progress, life, and religion all strive to reject darkness.

    Comment by TomT (ce2d63) — 3/30/2009 @ 5:50 am

  11. Mr. Limbaugh is never really on my radar except when socialist news media like Newsweek and NPR take their dictation directly from Meghan McCain’s president’s White House and make a big dealio about something he said cause they think it will further Mr. Soros’s dirty socialist agenda.

    Comment by happyfeet (71f55e) — 3/30/2009 @ 5:51 am

  12. I’m not afraid to say that I love listening to Rush when he gigs the left. It is exciting to hear. Having said that, the rest of you bending over backwards to lambast him or to say “why, some of my best friends are … ” need to get a life.

    Limbaugh is a conservative who relishes the combat and listeners, from the right and especially from the left need to understand that.

    Now, I know I’m right 99.83% of the time and Rush only 97.8% of the time, and he and I don’t agree on everything so that must mean he is wrong about some things; but bashing the hippocrites on the left isn’t one of them!

    Comment by GM Roper (85dcd7) — 3/30/2009 @ 6:33 am

  13. I like Rush and Patterico. I enjoy listening and reading both men. Evan Sayet is also well worth the read or listen.

    Comment by krusher (46d39e) — 3/30/2009 @ 6:36 am

  14. Please. PLEASE! Let this issue go. You’ve warn it out. I bet it takes a long time for your sores to heal because you keep picking at them long after they should have healed over. Please don’t pick this scab anymore. I read your work because I enjoy it. This need to prove yourself should have already been satisfied. You have been writing this blog for quite a while and should have developed a thicker skin by now.

    Comment by Haile Tsada (ee7fbc) — 3/30/2009 @ 6:54 am

  15. Pat,

    Well said and fleshed out. Liberals deal in emotions and deception. That is why they hate you and Rush.

    Comment by PCD (02f8c1) — 3/30/2009 @ 6:59 am

  16. Well, of course it’s your blog and your rules…but that horsey is looking quite sickly right about now, wouldn’t you agree? Time to cue the Python “Dead Parrot” sketch.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:04 am

  17. Patterico is a must-read for me. Limbaugh is a new must-listen. That doesn’t mean I’ve become a dittohead and take everything from them as the Undeniable Truth. They can be wrong at times because (gasp) they’re human, not deities.

    Last week, Limbaugh apologized for an unfortunate remark he made on a previous show — yes, El Rushbo can screw up. And when he seems himself in the wrong, he admits it. Hardly the arrogant pompous know-it-all the left makes him out to be. And still immensely valuable as a counter to the slanted news you get almost everywhere else.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:07 am

  18. Patterico, you don’t have to defend yourself on this “charge.” I sent you a link last night from Andrew Breitbart that suggests a little bit about the battle that is under way.

    Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, and he has said so many times. Sure, he is a conservative, but he likes to say “over the top” things that stimulate discussion. Some of the things he says I agree with, others not.

    He is a great lightning rod for the Left. It is interesting to see how tolerant they are….especially when the vast majority (as in Klavan’s column) don’t actually listen to him. But they still feel competent to criticize him.

    You have had plenty of people not read your posts and still criticize you for them, right? Same thing.

    President Obama elevated Rush Limbaugh with the attacks. It was childish of him. Limbaugh loved it, and it indeed made for great listening.

    But most of all, Limbaugh is a happy man. Talking heads of the Left, not so much.

    Comment by Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:09 am

  19. Patrick, the problem is that you defend Rush only when you believe, based on reasoned analysis and your own values, that his actions warrant a defense. To a core group of die-hards on both sides of the spectrum, that is not enough — if your approach is not “my side, right or wrong,” then you are suspect — a traitor, a “concern troll,” RINO/DINO. You will never please the authoritarian wing on either side of the spectrum with analysis or nuance.

    Comment by Ken (14aa88) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:10 am

  20. Hey Dmac, the Left is NOT done demonizing Rush Limbaugh. They need to do this to ram Fairness Doctrine through.

    Ouch.

    Comment by Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:10 am

  21. Ken, good call. As Mike K. puts it, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Or words to that effect.

    Purity of essence never ends up well, on either side of the political aisle.

    Comment by Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:12 am

  22. @ #20 Eric: GREAT note, you’ve hit that nail on the head, fairly and squarely.

    Comment by GM Roper (85dcd7) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:20 am

  23. Why do you think the Times posted this untimely op-ed? They’ve exhausted the topic from the attacker’s point of view so now they are reduced to post Rush defenders to keep the diversion alive.

    Next week:
    Hear from liberals who took the bait.

    No, that’s not some sarcasm I added to prove my point. That is what it says at the end of the article.

    Comment by j curtis (95b116) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:24 am

  24. Facebook has a “Stop The Fairness Doctrine” group. I just joined. Others on Facebook, I hope you join too.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:25 am

  25. Not to be paranoid, but maybe the LAT staff is in on these conference calls and “journogroup” group-think meetings?

    Comment by Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:33 am

  26. 24 Notice how libs use terminology to color the initial interpretations- Choice instead of pro-abortion, fairness doctrine instead of shut the right the feck up, union check card instead of right for union goons to intimidate workers and gummint lackeys to impose contracts.

    How is that we pay taxes to support biased shite like PBS and NPR? I have neighbors who buy into Moyers BSD totally and any point of view espoused by those leftist charlatans.

    Didn’t see what the final msnbc vote was for Obama’s grade. Last night it was 48% giving him an A so far as Potus. I’m sure the same mental midgets would give Bush II an F consistently.

    Al Franken of AirAmerica cheats on his taxes and his minions cheat in the Minn. Senate race count, taking a page from the outrage in that controversial Wash. state election. Meanwhile private citizen Limbaugh pays lots of taxes and gets grief for abusing pain killers. Double standards are the rule for the dinosaur media.

    Comment by aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:51 am

  27. You guys love to beat the Fairness Doctrine strawman, ignoring that Obama is against and said so even before he was elected, and that it would have no chance of passing anyway.

    Comment by Andrew (9b1bce) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:53 am

  28. Andrew, how this works is that you have to actually post links to objective sources to buttress your statement. After many months of posting talking points continuously, are you telling us that you cannot perform even this simple task?

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:02 am

  29. the Fairness Doctrine strawman

    Prove it. Substantiate this statement – period.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:03 am

  30. Sorry guys, at first I thought that people like you who are so obsessed with the Fairness Doctrine issue would be aware of the President’s position on this.

    I underestimated your ability to not read news.
    Here are the months old breaking news that you requested:

    June, 2008: “Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine” http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114322-Obama_Does_Not_Support_Return_of_Fairness_Doctrine.php

    “Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.”

    Feb. 2009: “White House: Obama Opposes ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Revival”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/?xid=rss-page

    Comment by Andrew (e57bc9) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:15 am

  31. First, Andrew, President Obama doesn’t write laws.

    Congress does.

    Are you saying that President Obama will refuse to sign legislation that includes a new version of the Fairness Doctrine?

    Really?

    Because I sense a really profitable bet coming up.

    Comment by Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:18 am

  32. BWAHAHA! “Like my teleprompter always said ….”

    Has the Magical Mau Mau kept his word about anything, Andrew?

    Comment by nk (c90ef8) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:19 am

  33. Ok Eric, now tell me how many influencial senators have come out in favor of it.

    Break down the threat of it becoming a bill for me please. That would determine whether your panic is justified or alarmist.

    Comment by Andrew (c543ad) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:20 am

  34. Maybe Andrew can tell us whether or not Air America ever paid back that money they stole from children, all the while making sure stuart smiley got his big salary or whether smiley ever paid all those state taxes he conveniently forgot about?
    Tell us that O’Dumbo is not pushing for ACORN to run the census? That Free Card Check is not a giveaway to unions? That NPR, PBS and National Endowment for the Arts are not liberal bastions, albeit supported by taxpayers? That together Raines and Gorelick got bigger bonuses than all those corporate fatcats from AIG? And how much $$$ did O’Dumbo, Lurch, Dodd, Franks pull in as donations from AIG, Fannie and Freddie? I think Dodd was #1 and O’Dumbo #2 with monies from the housing giants. Will they be returning any (rhetorical)?

    Comment by aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:21 am

  35. Since that Fairness Doctrine “strawman” has multiple congressional adherants, including people from the shrinking Detroit, I would have to believe if Andrew would admit he was wrong when he called it a “strawman” argument.

    I would have to believe that if Andrew had shown a modicum of intelligence or ability to research. But since “dummerer than a sack of Andrews” is a valid, glaring insult, due to … Andrew will never admit he is wrong about anything.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:22 am

  36. The voting record says it all:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-fairness-doctrine/

    Comment by Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:22 am

  37. Andrew, just be sure to stick around. I’ll be you cash money that, if it comes before the President, he’ll sign it.

    Care to take the bet? Patterico will referee.

    Don’t change the subject.

    Comment by Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:24 am

  38. That’s “bet you cash money,” of course.

    But then, Andrew, you have nothing to fear. President Obama’s prior voting record has often set him at odds with the hardest Left faction of the Democratic Party.

    Right?

    Comment by Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:25 am

  39. I want to see that bet. I don’t gamble and I want some of that action.

    Ignore the reports by various sources that BHO had the furthest left voting record of all US Congress (when he wasn’t voting “present”) and put down money, Andrew. I need a fat payday.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:28 am

  40. Don’t worry guys. Once Congress passes the Fairness Doctrine, Obama will post it on the White House website for 5 days of public comment. Then, before he votes against it, voters can have their say!

    /sarc

    Comment by carlitos (aad3f6) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:31 am

  41. Well, Andrew has his view:


    “..Ok Eric, now tell me how many influencial senators have come out in favor of it…”

    Hmm. So I went to google. Guess what I found:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine#Support

    Oh, but none of those are important members of Congress.

    Just the Speaker of the House.

    Comment by Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:32 am

  42. An ammendment to outlaw the FD passed 87-11 passed recently.

    You guys hate google, don’t you?

    Saying “my opponent is dumb” is not an argument. Do your homework :)

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-tunes-out-fairness-doctrine-2009-02-26.html

    Comment by Andrew (0e8d9c) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:34 am

  43. Andrew,

    Since you’re so aware of President Obama’s campaign promises, I don’t need to link the promises to wait 5 days before signing any bill, to limit campaign funding by using public funds, to be bipartisan (and not just say “I won”), not use signing statements, not sign any bill into law with earmarks or pork, end renditions (his new CIA head admits doing 60-80 renditions himself during the President Clinton administration), ban waterboarding, have more transparency in government (before quietly signing at least three Executive Orders without announcement to the WH press corps), need I go on?

    But he’s going to keep the “No Fairness Doctrin” promise, right? Pull the other one please.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:40 am

  44. Andrew,

    Since you’re so aware of President Obama’s campaign promises, I don’t need to link the promises to wait 5 days before signing any bill, to limit campaign funding by using public funds, to be bipartisan (and not just say “I won”), not use signing statements, not sign any bill into law with earmarks or pork, end renditions (his new CIA head admits doing 60-80 renditions himself during the President Clinton administration), ban waterboarding, have more transparency in government (before quietly signing at least three Executive Orders without announcement to the WH press corps), need I go on?

    But he’s going to keep the “No Fairness Doctrine” promise, right? Pull the other one please.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:40 am

  45. If anyone can double-post for emphasis, Captain Stashiu3 (naval ensignia) can.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:42 am

  46. I told you to tell me how many, Eric, not who.

    And how ironic that her support has resulted only in a 87-11 setback for the measure.

    Think.

    Comment by andrew (d2f616) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:43 am

  47. Stash, now tellme how many promises he has kept, so I can telll you bow likely he is to break this one.

    Comment by andrew (cbc5aa) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:46 am

  48. Durbin, Kerry, Harkin, Leahy … I think these guys are influental. Pelosi? Bill Clinton?

    Comment by carlitos (aad3f6) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:48 am

  49. The Limbaugh Challenge…

    Over the lunch table yesterday afternoon my friend Tim and I talked about how liberals say they hate Rush Limbaugh even though they have never heard his show. Then, in the LA Times of all places, there is this: LA……

    Trackback by Everything I Know Is Wrong (0436bf) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:48 am

  50. Dammit!! Caught a typo (“Doctrin”) after hitting submit and thought I caught it. Mea Culpa friends. ;)

    Andrew, when we are skeptical of President Obama’s rhetoric, we have reason to be. If you have that much faith in what he says, then you would take the bet. Easy money, right? (Disclaimer: I am not advising you to take the bet because I think you would lose.)

    Comment by Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:51 am

  51. Carlitos, those you mentioned didn’t seem to influence many in that 87-11 vote to outlaw the FD.

    Comment by andrew (819f4f) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:51 am

  52. You guys hate google, don’t you?

    We use it all the time here, but you appear to have only recently heard of it – and your links don’t support your “strawman” statement. Try again, Poindexter.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:54 am

  53. Stash, now tellme how many promises he has kept, so I can telll you bow likely he is to break this one.
    Comment by andrew — 3/30/2009 @ 8:46 am

    And if I’m not aware of any? ;) Although it’s good you acknowledge that the most reliable indicator of future behavior is past behavior. Doesn’t look good.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:56 am

  54. “…now tellme how many promises he has kept…”

    No, you tell us – you made the strawman argument initially, so defend it. Don’t attempt to threadjack.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:56 am

  55. Andre pull my finger

    Comment by Haile Tsada (ee7fbc) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:11 am

  56. Andrew, it is easy to vote against something and later vote for something more draconian. If a bill containing language that outlaws the Fairness Doctrine (I will not abbreviate or truncate that) becomes law, and the next week a bill containing language that requires the Fairness Doctrine, or something more draconian, becomes law, which vote holds weight?

    Aside from that, incrementalism has always been the phi of choice for the left. It is what has been used for at least 4000 years, with various points of excruciatingly painful shifts to the right.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:21 am

  57. Can you please stop with this obsession. We have already decided that you are not truly a conservative and do not like Rush Limbaugh or anyone who is a conservative. Please do not trouble us with facts or links that disprove our preconceptions. It is highly annoying.

    Thank you.

    Comment by People Who Do Not Read Patterico (921be1) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:34 am

  58. The issue isn’t whether one likes Rush Limbaugh or not. I have had problems with Limbaugh in the past mostly due to his blind partisanship (hopefully that is changing).

    The issue was his speech and whether despite what you think of Limbaugh himself whether you agree with the speech.

    I agree with the speech.

    The issue also as Patterico pointed out, whether you have heard him and really know what he his about or whether you accept the third hand liberal propaganda about him. Michael Steele obviously has never heard him and just bought the liberal line about him.

    No man (or woman) should be beyond reproach, but the way that Michael Steele attacked him and what that revealed about how easily he believes the liberal lie propaganda line about him is why Michael Steele should go. The RNC chair should at least have listened to him and know what he is about before attacking him. And Michael Steele didn’t attack him but his ideas, his speech, and separate from any ill feelings towards Limbaugh his speech was pretty good. So Steele wasn’t merely attacking Limbaugh but all of us in the grassroots who believed in the substance of the speech.

    Comment by James (73ab33) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:36 am

  59. Oh, that’s the first comment I saw from EfP after Patterico demanded an apology in his next comment or get banned.

    Unless EfP made an apology I didn’t see, that means he gets banned.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:37 am

  60. Andrew’s standard is really ridiculous, even for the namesake of the phrase dummerer than a sack of Andrews.

    Comment by JD (af9de5) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:37 am

  61. Ed from PA,

    Patterico left you a message.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:41 am

  62. It isn’t merely about Steele attacking Limbaugh. It is about how the way he attacked Limbaugh revealed how Steele is very susceptible to just going along with the liberal lie propaganda about stuff.

    No man (or woman) is beyond reproach, but when someone attacks Limbaugh (or anyone else in the conservative movement) it should not be based upon validating how the liberals want to portray him as.

    Steele should go not for attacking Limbaugh but for what his attacking Limbaugh revealed about himself.

    Comment by James (73ab33) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:42 am

  63. Eh, forget it. Debating you stoneheads really isn’t worth it.
    Comment by Ed from PA — 3/30/2009 @ 9:39 am

    So, you stand by your lies? Good to know. Buh bye.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:43 am

  64. EfP never clicks links. He doesn’t need to find the facts. Those nasty things will only get in the way of his agenda.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:46 am

  65. I believe it is also a matter of when “one of yours” is under attack you shouldn’t because of your own problems with the individual join in to the attack but instead remember where you do agree with the individual and defend that individual against the attack by your enemy.

    Obama attacks Limbaugh not merely because he wants to destroy one man (although he does want to destroy Limbaugh. He attacks Limbaugh to destroy the underlining conservative movement which one can’t deny that Limbaugh has a significant role in.

    That is why when attacked a conservative must put aside any problems one might have regarding Limbaugh (such as blind partisanship at least in the past) and defend him. For first they may come for Limbaugh but pretty soon it will be you they will be coming for but by that time will there be anyone left to defend you?

    Comment by Greg (73ab33) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:56 am

  66. Ed is gone.

    Comment by Patterico (921be1) — 3/30/2009 @ 10:19 am

  67. Thank you.

    Comment by Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/30/2009 @ 10:26 am

  68. Sheesh. I saw references to the posts that Ed from PA put up that were (I think) removed with his banning.

    These trolls don’t help their cause by their juvenile comments. It’s just about the fighting. I’m glad that type of poster is gone.

    Comment by Eric Blair (c8876d) — 3/30/2009 @ 10:37 am

  69. Geez, Patterico. You come out and defend Limbaugh, and now the market is down >250 points.

    And it’s all your fault

    Comment by Steverino (69d941) — 3/30/2009 @ 10:58 am

  70. The old “he might be a bastard, but he’s our bastard!”
    It is entirely unneccessary to attack the target of your opponents and give them more to attack with, they already have enough ammo to fuel their animus. Defend those things that you support, and defend against the baseless attacks. There will always be the opportunity to debate those areas that you disagree once the falsehoods have been banished from the field.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS (2d0a24) — 3/30/2009 @ 11:01 am

  71. Please do not trouble us with facts or links that disprove our preconceptions. It is highly annoying

    Is this from that lame robot from Lost in Space? “Warning! Danger! Dr. Smith! Warning!”

    Ed is gone.

    You’re a veritable model of restraint and rectitude – I would’ve thrown that douchebag outta here months ago. Kudos.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 3/30/2009 @ 12:42 pm

  72. I find I listen to Limbaugh more since the election. I tended to get annoyed at his defenses of Bush when I thought Bush was wrong. All you lefty lurkers from Wash Monthly can get up now. I disagreed with a lot of Bush’s domestic agenda and I think it, and Hastert’s weasel tactics, cost us Congress. The Republicans would be in good shape right now if they had not damaged the brand by acting like drunken Democrats who would always be re-elected.

    Now we have to find the message again. The only thing that saves the Republicans right now, and even Democrats are talking about this, is Obama’s inept performance.

    Comment by MIke K (8df289) — 3/30/2009 @ 1:27 pm

  73. That reminds me — time to download Limbaugh so I can listen to him on the way home.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (3752aa) — 3/30/2009 @ 2:01 pm

  74. I don’t like the obsession meme some people are on about. Mostly because Newsweek and NPR and MSNBC and the rest of George Soros’s media puppets attacked and smeared and unfairly misrepresented this Rush Limbaugh person and it was an a lot unprecedented thing for a president to participate in.

    Even the smug douchey ones with no dignity or experience or class hardly ever use the office to tear down individual law-abiding tax-paying stalwart brave and true American people. This was a very remarkable thing. Just because Barack Obama does six snotty and appalling things before breakfast where he slags someone or says stupid stuff or tries to steal someone’s monies what they earned and give it to his skeezey friends doesn’t mean we should let the Mr. Limbaugh thing go.

    It’s a cautionary tale, what happens when your little country’s formerly free press become socialist toadies with an enemy list. It’s wrong, what they did, and scary, and the socialist people are just getting started.

    Comment by happyfeet (71f55e) — 3/30/2009 @ 3:26 pm

  75. Preach it, Brother Happyfeet. Amen.

    Comment by JD (0ecdbf) — 3/30/2009 @ 4:15 pm

  76. “smug touchey ones” – heh.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 3/30/2009 @ 4:22 pm

  77. “douchey”

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 3/30/2009 @ 4:22 pm

  78. I don’t always agree with Rush but I got the feeling previously that you were echoing Frum and providing unneccesary bait for libs to marginalize Limbaugh. I’m not saying you (or anyone) can’t criticize Rush but supplying talking points to the moonbats is not good practice.

    I didn’t get as strong a feeling here (as I did with Frum) that there was no place for Rush and a successful Republican party. I felt DF fell into the ‘Rush is the spokesperson of the Rep Party’ false meme being forwarded all over the leftosphere.

    Rush is an American first, a conservative second and an entertainer third. Starting off understanding that premise would help.

    Comment by harkin (f9df5a) — 3/30/2009 @ 7:49 pm

  79. I just read that Limbaugh is threatening to move his talk show’s studio out of the heart of the Land of the Limousine Liberal, meaning New York City. In light of the fact he hasn’t managed to accomplish that one chore since the birth of his radio program, and, more tellingly, if he can’t manage to resolve that matter even at this late date — what with all the ire, from far and wide, directed at Manhattan’s Wall Street (chock full of greedy, but somewhat less unethical, versions of Bernard Madoff) and the people and politicians of New York City/State being wedded to tax-and-spend galore — then the dynamics and symbolism behind such inertia speak louder than plain ol’ politics and rhetoric.

    Simply put, people often vote with their feet. So, Rush, your two feet had better start moving.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:12 pm

  80. “I don’t always agree with Rush but I got the feeling previously that you were echoing Frum and providing unneccesary bait for libs to marginalize Limbaugh.”

    harkin – Did you get that feeling by reading here or was that something people were saying elsewhere?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:27 pm

  81. Mark, what are you talking about?

    RL is physically in Palm Beach, FL as far as I know.

    ABC is his “flagship” station which means almost nothing in terms of business operations.

    Comment by Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:37 pm

  82. I heard the same thing Mark did. Limbaugh said he visits New York from time to time, such as when hurricanes threaten or he has business there. But with the new taxes, Limbaugh said he may just sell his home there and move his home away from home to Texas.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:56 pm

  83. Limbaugh’s show today was very depressing. It’s one of the hazards of listening — there is so much awful stuff going on from Obama and his clueless minions I felt a little green around the gills midway through the show.

    Even accounting for hyperbole, the litany of abuses Limbaugh reeled off is nauseating.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/30/2009 @ 8:59 pm

  84. ^ I guess I’m not exactly an expert on Rush Limbaugh since I’m often unable to listen to his show–mainly because it’s broadcast at a time of the day when I can’t tune in.

    When I have listened, I’ve heard him frequently mention being in the “EIB building,” which I just assumed was somewhere in NY, although “EIB” (ie, “excellence in broadcasting”) really could just be a fictional, or semi-fictional, place in radioland, or, for that matter, his house in Florida (but Limbaugh apparently also does own a condo in NY).

    This is a transcript from his show today:

    I told Mayor Bloomberg: I’ll be the first to lead the way. You know, this is just… I’ll sell my apartment. I’ll sell my condominium. I’m going to get out of there totally, ’cause this is just absurd, and it’s ridiculous — and it isn’t going to work. It’s punishing the achievers for the mistakes and the lack of discipline on the part of a bunch of corrupt politicians that have run that city and state into the ground for I don’t know how many years — and I, for one, am not going to take the blame for it…

    And that’s the liberal capital of the world. People ask, “How often do you go to New York now?” As little as I can get away with. I think last year I was there a total of 15 working days. I go up to see the staff at Christmastime. New York is probably going to celebrate that I’m not going to come back, and I know Snerdley. They hate me, so they’re happy I’m not coming back. They’re going to praise Paterson for driving me out, even though I am rarely there anyway. Or, instead of a slogan, like: “New York: It’s Never Enough,” the I love New York campaigns, “You May Love New York, But New York Doesn’t Like You.” That ought to be another slogan that Governor Paterson ought to employ.”but I would love to tell my tax audit story of New York State and New York City since 1997. It happens every year, but that’s not the point. I have to prove 14 different ways where I am every day of the year. I have to prove 14 different ways, ’cause I pay New York state and city tax on a per diem.

    When I am there working I pay whatever, you know, my rate is based on income for that day in New York. And I try to go as little as possible. If it weren’t for hurricanes down here, I would never go up there. New York is the escape valve in case hurricanes are showing up in our area, because of the loss of electricity. So I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going to look for an alternative studio somewhere outside New York, perhaps Texas — another no-income-tax state — and I’m going to get the hell over there,

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 3/30/2009 @ 9:57 pm

  85. “I have to prove 14 different ways where I am every day of the year.”

    I was originally licensed as a CPA in NY. I kept up the license in NY for years after I had moved out of state. Every year the state hounded me wanting to know if I had earned any income in the state since I still maintained a professional license there.

    BASTIGES!!!!!

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/30/2009 @ 10:23 pm

  86. Rush Limbaugh in Austin, Texas?

    That would be pretty sweet. I hope he doesn’t ham it up too badly. Texas is not just a place for country music and wranglers.

    I can’t stand to listen to any show for 3 hours, but I empathize with those who keep hearing news about Obama and sicker and sicker. Don’t be demoralized. Obama wants you to be demoralized. Focus on the good, simple things in your life, and channel your anger into something constructive.

    Comment by Juan (4cdfb7) — 3/31/2009 @ 12:12 am

  87. Mark,
    I guess I’m not exactly an expert on Rush Limbaugh since I’m often unable to listen to his show–mainly because it’s broadcast at a time of the day when I can’t tune in.

    I download Limbaugh’s podcasts and listen to them on the way home. They are on The Pirate Bay, in torrent form. Search under Audio/Other in the early afternoon.

    The Pirate Bay is under legal challenge for alleged copyright violations, so it’s not clear if this will continue.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/31/2009 @ 7:05 am

  88. People who have heard Rush for any length of time whether a regular listener or not knew that he did not want the country to fail, but Obama’s programs.
    Your article trying to dissect his words was not only unnecessary but an exercise in futility.
    Your blogging Fred Thompson who expressed the same thing Rush did only having gone to school on Rush’s broadcast carefully avoided any ambiguity was equally meaningless.
    Hardly anyone heard Fred’s comments or read your blog.

    Comment by Edward Cropper (6a7a91) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:06 pm

  89. But apparently you did, Edward.

    Comment by JD (6f1fb5) — 3/31/2009 @ 2:09 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3402 secs.