Patterico's Pontifications

3/10/2009

An Area of Agreement on the Interpretation of Rush’s Statement: It Was Not an “Ugly Statement”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:50 am

I thought I was done with the Rush Limbaugh thing. But after reading Jeff Goldstein at Hot Air yesterday, and listening to him at Breitbart.tv, I finally see an area of common ground where all conservatives can agree on an important aspect of how we interpret Rush’s comments. (If you’re not interested, that’s fine; there’s always the next post.)

(By the way, Jeff and I have agreed to put the bad blood behind us.)

Jeff’s insight yesterday, I thought, was best expressed in the Breitbart.tv segment, where he said:

Why are we allowing them to frame it as an ugly statement?

That’s the key. No matter what Rush meant in the specifics, I think it’s clear that he never meant this as an ugly statement.

We can all agree on that.

Now, for us to go out and defend Rush and explain why his statement is not ugly, it would be ideal to be able to explain exactly why. And that’s where Rush failed, because he didn’t make it clear that he did not hope for the failure of the policies once enacted. This is the old ground that needn’t be retread, except to the extent necessary to briefly respond to Jeff’s Hot Air piece.

(Understand that it’s not “parsing” or “trivial” to talk about the specific interpretation in terms of what Rush hoped for (if anything) once the policies are enacted. Because that lies at the heart of the controversy: many Americans are out of work, and they want the economy to get better, and they resent anyone who sounds like he doesn’t want that for America.)

Jeff begins his post by giving the context for the initial iteration of the “I hope he fails” rhetoric. Goldstein concludes:

From the context, it is clear what Limbaugh is on about, specifically, Obama’s “plans […] “as he stated them,” and his desire to see those plans fail.

My point has always been: failure in what sense? Here’s the part of the quoted context that always intrigued me. It’s the part that told me that, arguments about extemporaneous speaking aside, Rush had carefully thought this through and premeditated it:

So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not?

If “I hope he fails” meant only “I hope his left-wing agenda is not enacted” — with no room for any other interpretation — I don’t see the possible controversy. The fact that people were telling him it was controversial, even though that may be part of his shtick, indicates that he must have known there was another possible meaning. That possible meaning was set forth well by Ace:

I am honestly telling you that I’ve read Rush’s fuller quote and I *still* think the statement can fairly be read as “I hope Obama fails, and the economy doesn’t recover [in the near term], because it’s THAT important that liberty be preserved.”

I have added “in the near term” to that language because any fair reading of Rush’s language understands that he wishes the best for America in the long run. But it’s certainly reasonable to interpret his comments as saying that he wished economic failure in the short term. The President’s “failure” in these difficult economic times is naturally and reasonably associated with a continued slide into depression — with concomitant job losses and an continued implosion of the stock market. In fact, Obama certainly appears to be “failing” right now by those obvious measures, doesn’t he?

As we have discussed here previously, in an admittedly unscientific survey I took here, many conservatives agreed with Ace.

Goldstein says:

That Rush made the statement on January 16th, in advance of any of these plans going into effect, makes hypothetical questions (and unscientific polls dedicated to interpreting them) about whether or not Mr Limbaugh wants to see the economy tank and America disintegrate into socialist hell if indeed those plans go into effect moot

I disagree that the questions were hypothetical; failure could mean failure of enactment (unlikely with a Democrat Congress) or failure of the policies once enacted. Even before enactment, this is a reasonable interpretation.

And it’s even more reasonable after the enactment of the stimulus passage. In his piece, Goldstein refers exclusively to Rush’s comments on the radio, but Rush doubled down on the “I hope he fails” rhetoric in a CPAC speech made after the stimulus was passed.

Enough of that. Jeff’s main point in the piece is about language and interpretation, and I have a theory about that which I believe is different from Jeff’s. I don’t have time to discuss that this morning, but perhaps we can discuss it in coming days — and that discussion need not center around Rush Limbaugh. It’s a discussion about communication, and I look forward to it.

In this piece I mainly wanted to a) identify the common ground, and b) explain why it was hard to identify that before and defend Rush on that basis — because he failed to eliminate an ambiguity leading to a reasonable (and controversial) interpretation of his comments.

Comments (50)

50 Responses to “An Area of Agreement on the Interpretation of Rush’s Statement: It Was Not an “Ugly Statement””

And that will be the final post about Limbaugh’s comments — unless it isn’t!
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/10/2009 @ 7:54 am
That’s the key. No matter what Rush meant in the specifics, I think it’s clear that he never meant this as an ugly statement.

We can all agree on that.

As long as “we” doesn’t include the Obama Administation as it is now their official policy to misconstrue and misrepresent Rush Limbaugh. He must be reprehensible and he must be the leader of the Republican Party no matter how ridiculous that notion seems.

For my money, if we’re going to have a pundit in charge, I want Krauthammer.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/10/2009 @ 7:59 am
hoped for (if anything) once the policies are enacted

And my point about communication (again) is using the most provacative interpretation paraphrased in the most provocative way to criticize an ambiguous statement is unfair.

It may be true that the statement was carefully framed to be both ambiguous and provocative, but IMO ifso Rush knows what he’s doing.

There are many ways to paraphrase the strong (#2) interpretation … “If the policies are enacted and the economy fails to recover I hope Obama gets the blame.”

Don’t like that one ? not surprised.
boris (ecab60) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:04 am
Patterico – I never thought Rush’s statement was ugly which was perhaps why I said I thought you were a little wobbly on this one. I firmly believe Rush does wish the best for this country. His style and delivery, however, does turn some folks off as does that of Coulter. Digging through everything and slogging through hundreds of comments, the differences between you and Jeff are not really as great as they seem, more form over substance, and there’s no reason both types of thinking can’t exist on the right. When one side of a debate locks itself into an overly rigid “interpretation” of an argument, things do tend get ugly.

Thanks for the post.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:08 am
And that will be the final post about Limbaugh’s comments

We can only hope. Is there some level of bribe I can offer to ensure this really is the final post on the subject? 🙂
Steverino (69d941) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:11 am
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs hopes Mr. Limbaugh succeeds.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs presented the fairest reading possible of Mr. Limbaugh’s hopes for the nation.
Therefore Mr. Limbaugh will have the fairest opportunity to succeed.
Mr. Limbaugh thanks White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs for his unsolicited help.
sdferr (8643ba) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:15 am
Anyone fairly reading Limbaugh’s comments could not say they were ugly. What Limbaugh said was eloquent and as mild as someone true to his principles could have said under the circumstances.

I think Limbaugh was absolutely correct, and I’m not even a conservative. Can’t you on the right just learn to get along?
🙂
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:26 am
sdferr – White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wants to buy Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Santelli and Ms. Coulter all a cup of coffee, decaf, and give them a tour of White House nuclear shelter.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:27 am
Saying that you hope Bam fails doesn’t imply you hope the economy fails. Patriotism in this case is being used as a refuge for scoundrels.

As an additional thought,if one assumes (as Rush Limbaugh did) that the probable policies to be enacted are losers, why would anyone root for them to work?

I agree with Jeff Goldstein- it’s wrong to let the media and the White House to frame this debate. If the policies in question are so great, why all the crybaby stuff about rooting for them to fail? Doesn’t make sense unless there’s real doubt about their efficacy.
trentk269 (9f7c24) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:35 am
I hope he falls down and skins his knee.

There, I said it!
mojo (8096f2) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:38 am
You guys ever stop to think about how easily you have all been trolled by that half witted retard Paul Begala? How many days are you people going to spend on this total non-issue? I mean seriously.

QUIT FEEDING THE FUCKING TROLL!
gabriel (3b1f6b) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:41 am
Rush is a super nice guy who practically pennieless started fighting for you and me on the radio.

Being as outspoken as he was he virtually made it a suicide run – if he got fired – no one was going to rehire him to do public announcement and public relations

A huge risk for a guy terminated from soo many jobs with no money saved up

Through the power of ideas, convictions, faith, and patriotism he flurished and was/is rewarded for his measure of success.

Now he’s a target, but rush never forgot the everyday citizen as witnessed by his constant charitiable works and his no compromise with those that intend to do us harm for personal and political gain and the bigger the target the bigger the Rush.

I grow weary of those who deem to understand why or in what context someone says something when it was soo bloody obvious in the first place.

Obamas success is Americas failure

How many times do we need to do this dissection of a simple statement.
EricPWJohnson (38531e) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:42 am
If the policies in question are so great, why all the crybaby stuff about rooting for them to fail? Doesn’t make sense unless there’s real doubt about their efficacy.

Or unless God really does listen to Rush.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:43 am
Rush is being mischaracterized by half-quotes and distortions, just as yesterday when the MSM “cleaned up” Buffet’s statement and only aired the “let’s back Obama” parts.
Cara (53e4d3) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:46 am
Did anyone ever call Rush’s statement ugly? Color me confused…
h2u (81b7bd) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:50 am
h2u,

Someone in the media did (DL Hughley,perhaps) and Steele agreed!
Karl (f07e38) — 3/10/2009 @ 8:54 am
Try this one on:

Q You say you don’t want to quarrel with Warren Buffett. What about Rush Limbaugh? Over the weekend he had some interesting comments — (laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I think he probably knows a lot less about the economy than maybe Warren does. (Laughter.)

Q The President has spoken a lot about bringing the country together, and after the stimulus fight there was a lot of hand-wringing in both parties about bipartisanship. What is the White House’s reaction to Rush Limbaugh saying again that he wants the President to fail, specifically on his economic plans? And how does that bode for bipartisanship in the future, working with Republicans?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the question is a good one. I think that — I think maybe the best question, though, is for you to ask individual Republicans whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend. Do they want to see the President’s economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend.

You know, I mean, I think he — I mean, I think it would be charitable to say he doubled down on what he said in January in wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country. I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said that on the other side relating to what was going on in this country or our endeavors overseas. You know, I’d like to think, and I think most people would like to think, that we can put aside our differences and get things done for the American people.

I will say, in watching a few cable clips of Mr. Limbaugh’s speech, his notion of presidential failure seemed to be quite popular in the room in which he spoke.

Reasonable interpretation. Gibbs makes the call.
sdferr (8643ba) — 3/10/2009 @ 9:00 am
What we have here is a failure to communicate? I doan lahk it any more than you, Patterico. (Mild violence, otherwise SFW.)
nk (31b2d3) — 3/10/2009 @ 9:00 am
Someone in the media did (DL Hughley,perhaps) and Steele agreed!

Oh, that’s right. Well, have any conservatives called Rush’s statement ugly? I simply think it was a bit crass.
h2u (81b7bd) — 3/10/2009 @ 9:06 am
I would rather gather our guns and point them all in the right direction. You, Newt and others may be wobbly at times, but you are welcome to join the possee.
Joe (17aeff) — 3/10/2009 @ 9:07 am
Obviously it is being presented as ugly when it is taken out of context and then presented to elected Republicans with a question akin to “Do you agree with beating your wife.”
Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 3/10/2009 @ 9:07 am
“You, Newt and others may be wobbly at times, but you are welcome to join the possee.”

Joe – Do you actually contribute anything to the discussion other than needlessly stirring the pot, linking comments between the sites like an Eddie Haskell wannabe, and cutting and pasting links to other posts around the net?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/10/2009 @ 9:20 am
The One is still insulated from direct attack by the warm flow of affection coming from his college-educated, vegetarian, with 2.2 bicycles, followers.

The other word for insulation is isolation. Why don’t we go after his Secretary of the Treasury who cannot fill out his tax return, his Secretary of State who is a shrill harridan and can turn “Good Morning” into an insult, or his two closest leash-handlers, Emanuel and Axelrod who are the exemplars of Chicago Machine kleptocracy? And leave the Magical Mau Mau (thanks, Ace) dangling.
nk (31b2d3) — 3/10/2009 @ 9:20 am
Joe – Do you actually contribute anything to the discussion other than needlessly stirring the pot, linking comments between the sites like an Eddie Haskell wannabe, and cutting and pasting links to other posts around the net?

LOL. daleyrocks, way to call him out.
h2u (81b7bd) — 3/10/2009 @ 9:28 am
“I agree with Jeff Goldstein- it’s wrong to let the media and the White House to frame this debate.”

trentk269 – Hey, you also agree with Patterico! I do not believe it’s Patterico’s position to allow the other side to frame the debate either.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/10/2009 @ 9:31 am
I, as I believe Rush also, want Socialism to fail in America. I don’t want additional layers enacted, and I want those layers that exist to be abandoned, so that Liberty may flourish.

‘…By the way, Jeff and I have agreed to put the bad blood behind us…’
Of course, that’s relatively easy; as long as you keep staggering forward,
that bad blood from the knives in your back, will always be behind you.
//I love a good straight-man.
AD - RtR/OS (10796a) — 3/10/2009 @ 9:37 am
This whole episode would have been water under the bridge days agai except for one thing: Obama’s emgagement with a citizen from the Bully Pulpit of the Oval Office.

Rush has the right to say and believe anything he so desires. But for the President to react to the comments of a citizen is beyond the pale. Can anyone show me where Bush reacted to Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, or even Dan Rather’s Rathergate fiasco? No – why? there is a difference in acting presidential and being the President. Bush was acting presidential, while Obama is Present.
SShiell (fc4ea5) — 3/10/2009 @ 9:54 am
Too bad Jeff did not think of this first. Those guys at Ace’s place are soooo smart:

Well, how you respond to bear attacks is a guide on how you should respond to criticism from the mainstream media.

If you’re a conservative, then you can be 99.7% sure that the media is made up of Polar bears. You’re nothing more than meat to them, and they’ll keep coming until one of you is dead.

If you’re a moderate Republican who thinks that bipartisanship is the best thing since sliced bread, then the media is a Brown bear. They’ll mess you up bad, and they might even eat you if they need a meal, but they won’t actively stalk you unless you do something to provoke them…..like running for President or voting against the Porkulus package.

If you’re a Democrat or a liberal Republican, then the media is a Black bear. Attacks will be rare, but when they DO happen they’ll be fatal. Gov. Blago knows what a Black bear attack feels like.

discuss amongst yourselves

Russ schools us all.
Joe (dcebbd) — 3/10/2009 @ 10:38 am
Do you actually contribute anything to the discussion other than needlessly stirring the pot,

I assume that question is purely rhetorical at this point – Joe, either post something that isn’t a massive cut and paste job, or go somewhere else to talk your silly shiite.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/10/2009 @ 10:47 am
Dmac–you are in the black bear group.
Joe (dcebbd) — 3/10/2009 @ 10:50 am
[…] (in a pontificating manner) half-way apologizes to Rush Limbaugh. This was written by admin. Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 12:30 pm. […]
The Farm Report › (0e22df) — 3/10/2009 @ 11:01 am
Dmac–you are in the black bear group.

Whatever – and you’re a common – variety troll at this point.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/10/2009 @ 11:25 am
agreed, not ugly, What D.L. Said in cnn to steele about the Repub. National Convention looking like Nazi Germany, was ugly.
slizzle (cebb6d) — 3/10/2009 @ 11:27 am
Dmac – Eddie Haskell. Even Jeff called him on it Sarurday night I believe.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/10/2009 @ 11:39 am
Mickey Kaus even sees it.

Shame on me for believing a HuffPo headline.
P.S.: The whole Begala-Carville coordinated campaign against Limbaugh seems misguided when Obama is supposed to be leading the nation out of crisis (see Warren Buffett’s comments, below). Quite apart from whether it’s a good idea to take one of your smarter opponents and build him up, the campaign seems petty, partisan and poll-driven–not designed to produce any kind of national pulling-together. If Begala weren’t around I’d suspect Chris Lehane of thinking it up. … 8:11 P.M.

The Buffet story is another example of the media stoking fires or tamping them down, depending on whose chestnuts are being burned.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 3/10/2009 @ 11:49 am
Limbaugh’s own words: “It has started the debate—if we want Obama’s policies to succeed or fail.”

We can all argue ’till Al Gore admits global warming is a farse, but if Rush has brought more attention to Obama’s agenda, (even if it was ugly or poorly articulated), isn’t the point to focus on Obama and this spending madness? And didn’t Rush achieve this goal?

Will Mr. Frey, in future post about the “failures” of the LA Times have to limit or qualify every statement when he visits the word failure in describing the Times journalistic skills? Perhaps there’s no parallel or intersection here in my argument. It would be easy for everyone to agree that the next assualt by Islamic fanatics on our soil would result in total failure, but the assualt on capitalism by liberal fanatics, (even as Americans), must be carefully handled when hoping for their failures??? Color me still confused.

(my main point is Patterico, Jeff, Hot Air, and yes Rush have all gained “hits” and attention on this issue. Isn’t it time to put this level of awareness back on the one who deserves the real scrutiny—-namely Barack Obama?)
Rovin (a5d8b7) — 3/10/2009 @ 12:01 pm
In my case, I gained my hits by posting to Hot Air.

They get the pretty blog money for that, not me.

‘Cause, like, it’s all about the ducats.
Jeff G (5ccfaa) — 3/10/2009 @ 1:13 pm
Jeff, it sucks that it’s hard for right of center bloggers to make a living. The left has the patronage of dying media giants to support them, but the right has to be huge or have a day-job.

that’s a big problem.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 3/10/2009 @ 1:27 pm
Dmac – Eddie Haskell. Even Jeff called him on it Sarurday night I believe.

Comment by daleyrocks — 3/10/2009 @ 11:39 am

Jeff posted the Ace story himself. Eddie Haskell? Not exactly. I will cop to enjoying stirring the pot occasionally, but this one is not between Patterico and Jeff and I posted it because it is actually a pretty good analogy (even if Russ did not give the hat tip to Protein Wisdom).

You obviously both fall into the black bear group. Or maybe whorish Goldilocks. I am not really sure.

I think Jeff said a few choice things about you daleyrocks. I know both Big D and me enjoyed your petulent posts.
Joe (dcebbd) — 3/10/2009 @ 1:30 pm
“I think Jeff said a few choice things about you daleyrocks.”

I must have missed them Joe. Why don’t you steer me to them or post them here?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/10/2009 @ 1:37 pm
Good lord. Yet another post to parse out, deconstruct and reconstruct the reckless irresponsible words of a self-absorbed egotistical fool.

This is Rush Limbaugh people, not James Joyce. What he says is what he means.

Obsessing over his words not going to change that.

But like any jilted lover it is very hard for you guys to see that.

The question isn’t really “What did he mean when he said what he said.” The real question at the core of this firestorm of debate on the Right is really the following:

Is is time for the Republicans to end the love affair with Rush Limbaugh.
Peter (e70d1c) — 3/10/2009 @ 1:44 pm
Answer that question with honesty and some spine, and I’ll begin to worry about you guys moving towards viability and health as a political party.
Peter (e70d1c) — 3/10/2009 @ 1:49 pm
BTW Dow up 379 points.
Peter (e70d1c) — 3/10/2009 @ 1:55 pm
Or maybe whorish Goldilocks.

Posted by said whore who posts other’s screeds 24/7. Nice irony – free meter you got there, Poindexter.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/10/2009 @ 1:55 pm
“Jeff posted the Ace story himself. Eddie Haskell? Not exactly. I will cop to enjoying stirring the pot occasionally, but this one is not between Patterico and Jeff and I posted it because it is actually a pretty good analogy (even if Russ did not give the hat tip to Protein Wisdom).”

That might be difficult, Joe, being as how Jeff linked to the article I WROTE first at Ace’s. I mean, yeah, sure. I could start hattipping EVERYTHING I write to EVERYONE who might link to it, just to be overly polite.

I’m just happy that Jeff & Patterico have signed a Peace Accord. Now that they’re back on the same team, who’s going to be the “Poland” that they divide up between their websites?

(Thanks for the linkage, Joe. If it sounded like I was breaking your balls there….I was, but it’s done out of love.)
Russ from Winterset (3c01f1) — 3/10/2009 @ 2:21 pm
Russ–I copied your post and put it up at Jeff’s place at 11:05 a.m. in the post below’s comments before he before he posted it 11:47 a.m. as a separate post. But we are all the same circle jerk of love against the forces of darkness and you recognize most of the bears out there are not Yogi and Boo Boo.

Well all of us except perhaps daleyrock. He doesn’t seem right in the head.
Joe (dcebbd) — 3/10/2009 @ 4:53 pm
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14495 Post 119, 11:05. I call you a Biden at Post 120 Russ, 11:07.
Joe (dcebbd) — 3/10/2009 @ 4:58 pm
It’s nice that Patterico and Jeff have kissed and made up, but the scent of Jasmine and doeskin still lingers.
nk (31b2d3) — 3/10/2009 @ 5:07 pm
Yet another post to parse out, deconstruct and reconstruct the reckless irresponsible words of a self-absorbed egotistical fool.

Still a lot better than falling in love with a “Goddamn America” loudmouth wailing away at the pulpit, so much so that he’s chosen by the, uh, current guy in the White House to preside at his wedding, and several years later, and until not that long ago, brought in as a close advisor—until public controversy forced a change of plans.
Mark (411533) — 3/10/2009 @ 11:44 pm
Still a lot better than falling in love with a “Goddamn America” loudmouth wailing away at the pulpit,

Yeah, difference being that when Rev. Wright became a reckless egotistical distraction, Obama stepped up, as a real leader often times will, and with compassion for the complex issue at hand and the balls, determination and focus to know what was at stake for the whole country, elevated the issue at the heart of the matter, told the Reverend that his dialogue wasn’t helping and dealt with it effectively so the nation as a whole could move on to the important matter of electing a new president. and the country by and large understood what he said and did just that. That’s what a good leader does.

Rushbo on the other hand is an endless fount of toxic crap. and amazingly, as is apparent from the revisionist interpretative acrobatics and lingual contortions taking place in the GOP, Right-wing media and blogosphere, not only is he allowed to do that and be the political equivalent of a bull in a China shop, but somehow –and it’s a neat trick if it wasn’t so repellent– has that uncanny ability to make his own weak, desperate and lost victims, justify his unjustifiable toxic spew, deny what he meant he said and even blame themselves (“Rush is only saying what any true red-blooded Reagan Republican should be saying.” [WTF??]) for it, as somehow he’s become the standard bearer for the party.

If that’s not a textbook definition of being someone’s bitch, I don’t know what is…

At this rate, you guys would be better off making that 14 year old kid from CPAC, Joe-the-Plumber or Chuck Norris the leader of the party.
Peter (e70d1c) — 3/11/2009 @ 2:13 pm

3/10/2009

An Area of Agreement on the Interpretation of Rush’s Statement: It Was Not an “Ugly Statement”

50 Responses to “An Area of Agreement on the Interpretation of Rush’s Statement: It Was Not an “Ugly Statement””

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out