The Wit and Wisdom of Rush Limbaugh, 6/12/06 Edition
"It is going to be a gang rape. There is going to be a gang rape by the Democratic Party, the American left and the Drive-By Media, to finally take us out in the war against Iraq." -- Rush Limbaugh, on Haditha
Um, about that thing I said about longing for the Limbaugh days...
"It is going to be a gang rape. There is going to be a gang rape by the Democratic Party, the American left and the Drive-By Media, to finally take us out in the war against Iraq." -- Rush Limbaugh, on Haditha
Um, about that thing I said about longing for the Limbaugh days...
posted by Winston Smith at
3:35 PM
21 Comments:
I dunno, WS. Your rebel credentials are getting pretty orthodox. I grew up on National Lampoon and this is nothing. If the left has no Limbaugh or Coulter these days, it's not for lack of trying.
I was curious to see what that right-wing hotbed freerepublic.com had to say about Boondocks cartoonist Aaron McGruder calling Condi Rice a murderer, which most people might think is a little more grave.
Some calls for prior restraint, but mostly not.
Before we romanticize the tradition of American civility, this is worth a look. (Caught him on C-Span over the weekend.)
Uhhhh...you've got to go all the way down the fame ladder to Aaron McGruder to find something to fire back with, do you?
I'd like for you to reflect on that fact for a bit...
After your reflection, we can start thinking about how many far more significant folks on the right seriously accused President Clinton of murder...
So one point here: you can always dig up a few indiscretions anywhere...but on the right for the last 20 years we're talking a pervasive policy of insanity, not an isolated incident or two.
Thanks for the link--looks interesting. But I dont' claim that things used to be better (though they were at some points). Lots of times they've been far, far worse.
Which is no excuse for them being bad now.
And no excuse for the crap that issues forth from Coulter, Limbaugh, Liddy, North, Robertson, etc., etc., etc....
McGruder came to mind and was a close analogue. Boondocks is an excellent and popular strip.
I don't collect grievances mentally, so I'm at a disadvantage. Not how I'm wired.
For Ted Kennedy to accuse Bush of starting a war for political purposes is far beyond what the toy store of infotainment can render. I consider Kennedy's charge on par with one of murder.
Yes, yes, Clinton was accused of wagging the dog, but it wasn't like something that didn't need to be done. Only the timing was questioned.
And I'm trying hard to avoid et tuoque. But a little perspective is in order. Sorry she hurt someone's feelings, but if you separate what she said from how she said it, which good minds are supposed to be able to do, she's been proven right---the victimhood of the Jersey Girls makes them above partisan criticism, even though Coulter is criticizing them exactly on the grounds of their own partisanship.
And yes, the Burns book does seem interesting. Man, did those Founders play dirty. But your newfound sensitivity toward rhetoric should be interesting, too, WS. Or dull. Forgive me for not trolling thru your older archives. Not wired that way, or at least trying to break some old habits.
Tom -
George Bush did start a war for political purposes, at least in part. Some of us remember how the scheduling of the war buildup was oh-so-coincidentally correlated with the 2002 congressional elections.
- p mac
Tom,
My worries about the civility of our political discourse are not new-found. They've been one of my central concerns here... Though obviously I don't always live up to my own standards.
But this is me being cool-headed...
I didn't understand this:
"Yes, yes, Clinton was accused of wagging the dog, but it wasn't like something that didn't need to be done. Only the timing was questioned."
It wasn't only the timing that was questioned. And Clinton's decision was far more rational than Bush's, the claims of dog-wagging were much louder and more sustained (some coming from the temporarily-insane TNR under Sullivan)...and if Republicans had only gotten behind Clinton back then we might have got OBL before 9-11 even happened.
The Boondocks may be excellent and popular, but McGruder is nowhere near as prominent as Coulter. And you point to only one example in his case. Coulter's a bottomless font of craziness.
If we're going to play like this, it'll always seem like there's parity. Lots of extremely prominent and habitually extremely crazy people on one side are somehow said to be balanced out by one comment by one rather obscure guy on the other side...
Nobody's claiming that there's a difference in KIND between the Dems and the GOP...just a vast, vast difference of degree.
Speaking of wagging the dog, I was fascinated by this chart (http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
I haven't verified it (because I'm too busy goofing off) but it's very interesting.
Winston, I brought up Aaron McGruder because he was the tightest comparison that sprang to mind. I've better things to do than troll the internet for tu quoques ("and so's your mother") that will fall on deaf ears anyway.
I participate here to develop my thinking, not spew it. You people (hehe, Michelle) are damn good, and if there's a hole in my thinking, you'll find it.
If I didn't say it before, all I meant to illustrate was that I was outraged at McGruder of course, but never thought he should be suppressed in the least.
I ran across redstate.com on the issue (I don't read it), not knowing what I'd find. I was pleasantly surprised that at least half of 'em were as mellow as I was. If they hadn't been (at least half) mellow, I'd have condemned them.
WS, to you there's a difference of degree, but that's only according to our sensibilities. I don't think you hear what I hear. I think accusing anyone of spending our troops' lives for Halliburton (or any commercial enterprise) is calling them a traitor and murderer. Surely you've heard that one so much you've become inured to it. Or perhaps such innuendo doesn't amount to that to your ears.
But it does to mine.
I'd rather McGruder and Coulter just tell us what they think. "Little Eichmanns" was fine with me. The man didn't hide behind plausible deniability.
As for "wagging the dog," if Clinton had bombed people who didn't need bombing, that would also be a charge of murder. I would stand up against such rhetorical scurrilousness and cowardice too. Innuendo is what really sucks.
You got something to say, say it. And take the consequences.
I think I might be on to something here, WS, as to the problem of civility. As always, hanging around here forces me to think. Cheers.
Winston,
A related riff on the right wing's beloved game of *false equivalence*:
http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/06/09/a-lie-for-a-lie-a-truth-for-a-truth/
T,
But the point is that the McGruder "equivalence" isn't a tight one at all...it's a distant, vague resemblance.
Most liberals are fairly mellow about most conservative abuse, too...and god knows that--until the Bush administration went completely over to the Dark Side--we were taking about ten times more of it than we were dishing out. Again: we have no Limbaugh, no Coulter, no Liddy, etc.
But Coulter has gone over the line many times. One truly bizarre thing about it is that folks on your side of the fence continue to treat her as if she were not only sane but actually worth hearing from. That alone is worth thinking about.
Clinton WAS charged with murder, with rape, with wagging the dog...so...then...you stood up for him at the time? Just wondering.
On the bright side for your case, there's the internet, where you can find wide-eyed Bush hatred in certain corners to rival Coulter's hatred of all things liberal. Part of that, of course, is a backlash against 15 years of invective coming from the right, part is the result of the genuine awfulness of the Bush administration, part due to cyberbalkanization and groupthink, part due to the fact that there are some genuinely nutty lefties.
To summarize: if you're denying that Coulter is a nut, I disagree. If you're denying that she's stepped over a line--or gone over the edge, I disagree. If you think she's the equivalent of McGruder, I disagree. If you're still thinking that "you shouldn't read this" is the same as a ban, I disagree.
FWIW...
I defend Coulter in the abstract. Free speech is worse than the alternative. What she said, in my judgment, is far less grave than the examples I've given from the other side.
Me, I'm a pussycat. I wouldn't do it her way. But she's an infotainer and it goes with the territory of National Lampoon and HL Mencken. I'm far more concerned with elected officials.
The real world.
Sorry, Tom, I've been familiar with the works of Mencken for at least 31 years, and Coulter isn't a Mencken.
I suggest you read "The Bozart of the South", or his obituary of W. J. Bryant and get back to us.
If you can find anything that was published in Mencken's lifetime that could be compared to La Coulter's remark that her problem with McVeighs' action was his choice of target, not the activity itself, that would be interesting as well.
You would find unsatisfactory anything I might offer. You'll tell me why it's not the same or as bad as whatever Coulter said.
No more Charlie Brown and the football, Friend DA. You have shown your colors by now. You are only interested in proving me wrong, about something, anything, which is why you picked this extremely minor point to call me out on.
And if you can't prove me wrong, you'll simply assert that I am. There is no point in continuing.
You would find unsatisfactory anything I might offer.
Sorry, TVD, I do agree with your comparison to Nat Lamp writers, especially in the early 70s', but you mention a specific figure, so you're going to be asked in what ways you find the She-Pundit and the Sage of Baltimore similar when you make the comparison.
I think you're not obliged to answer to my satisfaction, but you should be able to make a case to someone who may be ignorant of the works of either or both and is fair-minded by your standards.
No more Charlie Brown and the football, Friend DA. You have shown your colors by now.
You produced the football of Mencken, I'm ready to see if you can kick it, but then you cry 'Bad Faith", and somehow the football isn't the focus at hand, that's a trait worthy of a student of the great Houdini, FWIW.
You are only interested in proving me wrong, about something, anything, which is why you picked this extremely minor point to call me out on.
Mencken loved getting people riled up, like dear Trannie, but I can see no other basis of comparison between the two, and as he used to write back to those he offended, "You may be right".
And if you can't prove me wrong, you'll simply assert that I am.
It's really a matter of falsifiability.
You need only one quote from Mencken published in his lifetime that meets my challenge to falsify my stated position and make me look like an idiot.
I can't prove a negative(i. e., Mencken wasn't like Trannie Coulter) unless I'd read all his published works, and would be a fool to assert based on what I've read that it was indeed the case.
As with my fictional avatar, I might be excused for knowing what evil is possible in the hearts of men(present company excluded, of course).
Well, then, since you concede the National Lampoon point, for which I thank you, we are in fundamental agreement. The rest is details.
Let's take a breath here and buy each other a beer. Cheers, mate.
I loved the Lampoon. It was downright funny. I also got to meet Doug Kenney, while my wife was working on Caddyshack. Great guy, and a humor idol of mine.
In the fine spirit of kicking the football (I cannot break myself of trust in my fellow man or my good cheer, despite Charlie Brown), I'd point to Mencken's remarks on the inherent inferiority of the Negro.
It's not funny, or even excusably snarky for effect, which is where I put Coulter. If she'd written Mencken's words, she would be gone. And I'd bring the tar and feathers myself.
We take words too seriously, I think, DA. They are not real, and we sit in the safety in front of our computers responding as if they are. To wrap ourselves up in them is sophistry, which leads to no truth. I bristle at the words I don't like, which are different from the ones you don't like. But sticks and stones are what will break our bones. Despite Coulter's hyperbole, she doesn't really advocate violence toward anyone.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats."---H. L. Mencken
That's all she's saying with her "eliminationist rhetoric," a false alarm and hyperbolic sin if I ever heard one. I believe the term "eliminationist rhetoric" is far more incindiary than what Coulter actually says. The snake eats its tail, and TVD don't play that. Enough.
I'd point to Mencken's remarks on the inherent inferiority of the Negro.
Which POV was 'mainstream' at the time, up until the 1940s it was held by both major political parties, and is regrettable that he had his limitations as do many talented folks.
If actions speak louder than words, consider:
He was one of the most vociferous critics of the KKK,
His last published article before he had his stroke was a blast against segregated public facilities, FWIW,
and he also published many Negro authors, and there's been at least one book written about his relationship to the Harlem Renaissance. To quote James Thurber, "You could look it up".
Still want me to kick the football?
It's not funny, or even excusably snarky for effect, which is where I put Coulter. If she'd written Mencken's words, she would be gone. And I'd bring the tar and feathers myself.
Would that Trannie could write something like this:
"What a man of another and superior stock almost always notices, living among so-called Anglo-Saxons, is (a)their incapacity for prevailing in fair rivalry, either in trade, in the fine arts or in what is called learning—in brief, their general incompetence, and (b)their invariable effort to make up for this incapacity by putting some inequitable burden upon their rivals, usually by force. The Frenchman, I believe, is the worst of chauvinists, but once he admits a foreigner to his country he at least treats that foreigner fairly, and does not try to penalize him absurdly for his mere foreignness. The Anglo-Saxon American is always trying to do it; his history is a history of recurrent outbreaks of blind rage against peoples who have begun to worst him."
Yeah, real hate crime stuff there, he'd be booed off the stage at any major university.
I find that observation still on the mark, but then, like Mencken, I'm not Anglo-Saxon. :)
she doesn't really advocate violence toward anyone.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
Link
Also, if you could tell us in advance which part of your arguements are minor and therefore are unworthy of rebuttal, that would be appreciated.
This was one.
I cannot comply with your request because I can't tell in advance how trivial some people can be. Sorry.
And you didn't even buy me that beer before you set about to screwing with me once again. What a cad. I'll never go out with you again.
TVD, I can understand your sorrow here, but if you make a falsifiable statement, then you should prepare for the possibility of falsification.
Shall I try out for the new Stan Lee superhero competition as the "trivializer"? You seem to think I have some talent in this area, after all.
Anyway, your attempts to control and direct the discussion on this thread have been interesting, and a service to those who study human psychology as well.
I tell you what you're going to do before you do it, and you go do it anyway. That's not even interesting.
If you wanted to be a human being about it, you'd have written "I agree about the Lampoon, Tom, but not Mencken, and here's why..."
That's how people talk. Psychology? Physician, heal thyself.
Which is kinda what I did here, if you noticed........
Sorry, Tom, I've been familiar with the works of Mencken for at least 31 years, and Coulter isn't a Mencken.
I tell you what you're going to do before you do it, and you go do it anyway. That's not even interesting.
Well, I suggest No Doze if you're bored to the point of sleepiness, but you made a statement above about La Trannie that I falsified, as well as casting a slur against Mencken which suggests that your understanding of his work is a bit simplistic.
Your attempt to spin the argument to go your way would be better if you didn't have several holes in them, all of which a Sherman tank could be driven through with ease.
That's how people talk
Yes, we androids don't have it quite down yet, but give us time.
OK, DA, you were more civil than the steam coming from my ears permitted me to see.
I hope you'll permit me to withdraw my remarks, with an apology.
Apology accepted.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home