Rush Limbaugh accuses President Obama of something close to treason

I missed this over the weekend, but today’s Maureen Dowd column — yes, I read it, damnit — dredges up this little nugget from Rush Limbaugh’s weekend interview on Fox News:

In an interview on “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace,” Limbaugh accused the president of trying to destroy the economy — yes, the same economy that W. came within a whisker of ruining.

“I have to think that it may be on purpose,” Limbaugh said, “because this is just outrageous, what is happening — a denial of liberty, an attack on freedom.”

What the hell? One of the right’s leading political commentators is accusing the president on national television of deliberately bringing harm to his country in order to accrue power. That’s the kind of accusation that should only be made with a bushel of evidence in hand; airing it as a casual and unsupported political attack is vile hackery.

This is the point where lots of folks on the right, eager to have Rush in the corner but not always eager to have to defend his claims, pull the “Rush is just an entertainer” routine. Maybe. I certainly believe that much of what he says is an effort to maximize his audience. But the audience is largely made up of people who believe Rush’s crap. That is, verrrrry roughly, 20 million people a week. And while I don’t want to be alarmist, I do wonder how those millions of people will respond, over time, to being told not merely that the Democratic president is a bad presdient, but that he’s trying to ruin the country in order to take away their freedoms. I fear that can’t come to a good end.

Rush Limbaugh: Hoist on his own race-baiting petard

I haven’t said much about Rush Limbaugh’s exclusion from the NFL because really, what could I say? As my friend Ben points out*, some of the reporting about Rush’s “racist” remarks was simply, flat-out false and incorrect — or at least, not documented with the kind of thoroughness that one ought to bring to accusations of racism. I didn’t really want to be in the position of making the case that though these particular accusations might not be true, they certainly had the ring of truth.

Luckily, heterodox conservative Conor Friedersdorf makes a pretty good case — and in thoughtful fashion — at The Daily Beast, saying there’s not enough evidence to call Rush an out-an-out racist, but that Limbaugh certainly spends a lot of time picking at the wounds of racial sensitivities.

But even a cursory review of Limbaugh’s radio archives reveal the talk radio host to be a frequent race-baiter, one of the guys who obsessively trades on race.

In fact, based entirely on statements made by Mr. Limbaugh in 2009, one begins to wonder whether he’s been a bigger racial demagogue than even Al Sharpton during that period.

At the very least, he’s been bandying about the ‘r’ word rather frequently.

Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates? “He’s a racist,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “He’s an angry racist.”

Sonja Sotomayor? “She’s a bigot. She’s a racist,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That’s what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive.”

President Obama? He’s “the biggest reverse racist in history.” On another occasion: “Just as he is ACORN, just as he is Van Jones, he is racism.”On a third: “How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people.” So implicitly Mr. Limbaugh is labeling multiple figures within the administration as racists too.

Democrats generally? “The racism that everybody thinks exists on our side of the aisle has been on full display throughout their primary campaign.”

Liberals? “You know, racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left.”

Is there anyone in America who’s accused more people of racism this year than Rush Limbaugh?

No big deal, though. Everybody knows that “race hustling” can only be done by minorities. It’s wrong that false quotes were used to end Limbaugh’s bid for football moguldom; it’s difficult to muster much sympathy for somebody who spends so much time casually lobbing cries of “racism” at his ideological opponents.

* You’ll notice that Ben refers to Rush as a “satirist,” which seems to me too narrow a description. “Propagandist” is more like it, I’d say; I think smart conservatives sometimes refer to rush in terms like “satirist” because — apologies to Ben — it lets Republicans have their cake and eat it too. They get the advantage of a loud voice keeping up the morale of all the GOP troops — and helping create Dem-savaging storylines — while at the same time being able to say “He was just joking!” when Rush goes over the line. But Rush is not Will Rogers.

The New York Times and Rush Limbaugh

I’m not sure how the New York Times this morning could quote Rush Limbaugh as complaining that criticism of the president is unfairly smeared as racist while avoiding mention of his racist smear of the president.

If you don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, you’re a limp-wristed weenie undeserving of my manly respect

In yesterday’s L.A. Times, Andrew Klavan issued a challenge that — on its face — wasn’t all that unreasonable: If you want to criticize Rush Limbaugh, maybe you should listen to a few shows in their entirety. Klavan seems to think all of civilization would convert to conservatism if everybody took the challenge; more likely lots of folks would be somewhat annoyed and somewhat more entertained than they expected.

But honestly, the challenge came in the form of a column that seemed to parody conservatism’s worst excesses.

Why are you afraid to spend a couple of hours listening to Limbaugh’s show and seriously considering if and why you disagree with him?

Let me guess at your answer. You don’t need to listen to him. You’ve heard enough to know he’s a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

Now let me tell you the real answer: You’re a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You’re terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

The mainstream media (a.k.a. the Matrix) don’t want you to listen to Limbaugh because they’re afraid he’ll wake you up and set you free of their worldview. You don’t want to listen to him because you’re afraid of the same thing.

See: This is coming from somebody trying to make the case that Rush Limbaugh isn’t as outrageous as you think, and maybe is even reasonable on issues. But if in making that case, Limbaugh’s defender comes across as a bullying, paranoid braggart, why on earth would you even bother with the real thing?

Karl Rove calls the kettle black (an ongoing series)

I think I read Karl Rove’s Wall Street Journal column in order to raise my blood pressure. Some people bungee jump; I read the WSJ op-ed page. It gives my heart a good workout. Or it’s going to kill me.

Anyway, Rove’s latest act of chutzpah column is focused on the back-and-forth between the White House and Rush Limbaugh. President Obama is using Limbaugh as a foil to distract Americans from his failing presidency:

Why did the White House do it? It was a diversionary tactic. Clues might be found in the revelation that senior White House staff meet for two hours each Wednesday evening to digest their latest polling and focus-group research. I would bet a steak dinner at Morton’s in Chicago these Wednesday Night Meetings discussed growing public opposition to spending, omnibus pork, more bailout money for banks and car companies, and new taxes on energy, work and capital.

What better way to divert public attention from these more consequential if problematic issues than to start a fight with a celebrity conservative?

Give Rove some credit. He knows the politics of misdirection as well as anybody. After all, he was the figure behind President Bush’s call in 2004 — election year! — for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That set off a series of state-by-state fights that generally benefitted Republicans at the polls. But, weirdly, the Bush Administration never pursued the amendment with any real vigor.

It’s almost as though Rove was exploiting a controversial subject to divert public attention away from the war in Iraq, which was already beginning to lose public support at the time.

Remember: Whenever Rove speaks with confidence about some politically cynical act by anybody, it’s because he knows the terrain so well. He got there first.

More Limbaugh

Sorry for light posting today. (I know it disappoints you, badly.) In the meantime, Ben and I decided to expand our tussle over Rush Limbaugh this week in our Scripps Howard column. My more considered take:

Rush Limbaugh might indeed be the apotheosis of modern conservatism: Mean-spirited, sexist and bigoted. Liberals could hardly invent a better bogeyman if they tried.

But perhaps that’s giving Limbaugh too much credit. His job, after all, isn’t politics. It’s entertainment. He gets paid $50 million a year — a sum closer to the earnings of, say, Barbra Streisand than any politician or mainstream commentator — to sell advertising for the radio stations that carry his show. To do that, he has to deliver a huge audience.

That he does deliver that audience is proof that conservatism still has appeal in this country, even after eight disastrous years of the Bush administration. It’s also a testament to the enduring power of Limbaugh’s shtick: Outrage. Perpetual, nonstop, bleeding-ulcer outrage. He was angry during the first Bush administration. He was angry during the Clinton years. And he was angry during the second Bush administration. Now President Obama is in town and — surprise! — Rush Limbaugh is still angry. That may be entertaining, but it’s not really a political philosophy. It’s a marketing decision.

That’s not to say Limbaugh doesn’t wield some power; GOP congressmen clearly fear his influence over their constituents. President Obama, though, is wise to caution those congressmen about paying too much deference to Limbaugh; their job is to help run the country, not sell advertising. Let’s hope they understand the difference.

Ben makes the case that Limbaugh is right to oppose the $850 billion stimulus package, which isn’t unreasonable. But where Ben says that Limbaugh “deploys humor to powerful effect,” I’d say that Limbaugh is a “jerk.” Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Rush Limbaugh: Not helping

My friend and conservative colleague Ben Boychuk overnight Tweeted his (brief) thoughts about the role of Rush Limbaugh in our public life;

If liberals didn’t have Rush, they would need to invent him.

There’s something to that, I suppose. Every political movement loves to have a bogeyman — somebody who represents all the stereotypically worst impulses of your political opponents. But here’s the thing: Liberals don’t have to invent this bogeyman: Rush Limbaugh actually exists and — along with Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly — does everything he can to make our political discourse dumber and cruder by the moment.

Sometimes people forget this, but Rush Limbaugh exists primarily to sell commercials for radio stations. That he does so successfully, of course, speaks to A) his broadcasting talent and B) the fact that a lot of people buy (more broadly speaking) what he’s selling. But part of his shtick is that he’s always outraged — no matter who is in power or what’s being done, he’s always angry. It’s no accident that Limbaugh’s opposition to the McCain nomination became most intense once that nomination was virtually assured. Limbaugh guaranteed himself four more years of outrage no matter who became president.

I don’t mean to suggest that Limbaugh isn’t, at heart, a conservative. I’ve no reason to doubt it. But he’s got a pretty clear financial motive for being so pugnaciously conservative; there’s just no percentage in being nice, even when the times might call for it. The problem here is that Limbaugh is thus forever whipping up the passions of his listeners, who in turn make governing more difficult for no other reason than to make it difficult. I’m not going to try to silence Limbaugh, but it makes sense for liberals to point out when he’s not helping. And he’s usually not.

‘Barack the Magic Negro’

Note to Republicans who lament the dearth of African-American support for their party, even in non-Obama years: This kind of stuff doesn’t help:

Republicans who are vying to lead the national party offered a mix of reactions yesterday to the decision by one candidate for the job to mail out a music CD including the song “Barack the Magic Negro.”

That’s right: The guy who wants to lead the GOP is sending out the CD. And what’s more, there’s a debate (read the article) within the Republican party about whether it’s appropriate. Hey guys — until Republicans can get some unanimity on the idea that it’s wrong to make fun of black people in racial terms, you’ll probably never win black support. It’s not as though there aren’t some issues that you could connect on. You’ve been awfully harsh about Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for decades, but I’ve never heard your humor about them framed in racial terms. So it seems … kinda racist when you use it for Obama.

Of course, the song originally appeared on the Rush Limbaugh show. So it’s hard not to conclude that the willingness to appear kinda racist is a mainstream attitude for Republicans. And it’s hard to fault the GOP candidate for thinking that’d be the case.

Department of Obvious: Rush Limbaugh wants you to feel victimized

Some chatter this morning in journalistic circles about this essay by Dan Shelley, former honcho at a conservative talk radio station in Milwaukee. Here, he tells us what we already knew:

To begin with, talk show hosts such as Charlie Sykes – one of the best in the business – are popular and powerful because they appeal to a segment of the population that feels disenfranchised and even victimized by the media. These people believe the media are predominantly staffed by and consistently reflect the views of social liberals. This view is by now so long-held and deep-rooted, it has evolved into part of virtually every conservative’s DNA.

To succeed, a talk show host must perpetuate the notion that his or her listeners are victims, and the host is the vehicle by which they can become empowered. The host frames virtually every issue in us-versus-them terms. There has to be a bad guy against whom the host will emphatically defend those loyal listeners.

Well, duh.

Back when I asked how I’m supposed to maintain my righteous political anger in the face of Barack Obama’s election, a very obvious solution escaped me: I can still feel like somebody’s out to get me.

This is why Rush Limbaugh has had a genius 2008, by the way. He spent the primary season warning that John McCain would ruin the GOP – but basically mounted his opposition after McCain became the frontrunner for the nomination. (Although Limbaugh then turned around and gave McCain his support durin the general election.) That put Limbaugh in a win-win situation: Even if Republicans won the presidency, he would still get to play the victim. And that’s not just good ideology for Limbaugh: It’s also good for his bottom line.