Finger Lickin’ Good!
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Bernard Chapin at Pajamas Media offers one of the more revealing glimpses inside the cultish bubble that movement conservatism has become. Opining on the tired Limbaugh Frum Controversy, Chapin states:
Sadly, merely pillorying Limbaugh on his blog was not enough for Frum. A week later he published a cover story at Newsweek entitled “Why Rush Is Wrong.” His choice of media outlets was suspicious. Newsweek does not present information; it sculpts, manipulates, and slants it . . .
That Frum excoriated Limbaugh in the pages of a roach’s den of radicalism tells us much about his loyalties — he doesn’t have any. Like money deposited from the Reichsbank in the 1940s, there’s blood on the gold from which he was paid. His is a betrayal of biblical proportions: David slept with Goliath.
There is no point in being sensitive in regards to this fellow. He’s crossed the Oprahcon. Despite his Harvard education and bloated curriculum vitae, David Frum is not worthy of licking the tobacco from Limbaugh’s famously nicotine-stained fingers. In the foxhole that is contemporary politics, would you rather fight alongside a lion like Rush Limbaugh or a fop like David Frum? I’ll let readers decide for themselves. (emphasis added)
It is clear from Chapin’s rhetoric that he doesn’t so much believe that Frum’s criticism of Limbaugh is incorrect, though he does believe that, but that it is an act of treachery. In the brief passage I quote, he calls Frum disloyal, compares publishing for pay in Newsweek to Nazis stealing the valuables of Jews and indulges in some bizarre imagery. What kind of sick person imagines David Frum licking the tobacco stains from Rush Limbaugh’s fingers? Chapin seems to consider Limbaugh to be a religious figure who must be treated with reverence. It isn’t a matter of who is right or wrong, but of questions one dare not even raise.
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds posts a letter from a bubblefied reader:
I think there is a very serious, very important issue here.
The President publicly identifies a private citizen (Limbaugh) for vilification, and his spokesmen repeat it several times. Then a “major” publication calls for his silencing on their cover. Furthermore, this citizen is already controversial, and he is supported by only one-third of the people, making him a sort of pariah and easy victim.
There are many deluded wackos out there like Sirhan Sirhan and Hinckley who might take all this as orders to kill Limbaugh. God forbid such lunacy! It would constitute a giant step towards the nazification of America, and it would have been instigated by the President and the press.
Filed under: Uncategorized
“Private Citizen” is a bit of a stretch. Those accused of the anthrax attacks and Richard Jewell (falsely accused of the Olympic park bombing) were private citizens. Getting on a soapbox daily might be there for discussion, but multiple hours shouting from 23 thousand miles above the earth on a daily basis is different. It might be the fourth estate, but there should be no expectation of privacy.
I find a parallel problem with the Judiciary. There were arguments over Terri Schiavo, but one key question is if you cross the courthouse threshold, do you subject yourself to a super unaccountable branch of government, or into where all three can affect things. Or the simple criticism of judges. Or simply consider Clarence Thomas, or Robert Bork, or Ginsberg.
(The greatest folly is when they say GM, Chrysler, etc. should declare bankruptcy INSTEAD of having the government do something; Where exactly do bankruptcy proceedings occur and who runs them?).
And when are they going to start saying “the formerly oxycontin and allegedly currently viagra stained fingers and lips…”.
God help us. Or God judge us as it would be an act of mercy.
(The greatest folly is when they say GM, Chrysler, etc. should declare bankruptcy INSTEAD of having the government do something; Where exactly do bankruptcy proceedings occur and who runs them?).
You’re right. That is a misnomer. Then again, saying they should declare bankruptcy means that the government ought to do something based on the law, as opposed to doing something based on public opinion and lobbyist pressure. I’d rather have the former.
Chapin seems to consider Limbaugh to be a religious figure who must be treated with reverence. It isn’t a matter of who is right or wrong, but of questions one dare not even raise.
The Democratic establishment knows that the easiest way to neutralize Limbaugh is to get people talking about him. Limbaugh did a lot of good during the Clinton years, and he’s done no good whatsoever since. What’s changed? His focus. Back then he was focused on Clintonian malfeasance. Now he’s focused on himself. He has nothing good to say about himself, neither does anyone else. He isn’t a worthy topic for discussion.
Obama didn’t ‘target’ Limbaugh, he claimed that the latter is the leader of the conservative movement. These clowns just nod sagely when their ilk proclaim liberals as traitors, yet think that a backhanded compliment is an invitation to lynching.
Once again, many Republicans are falling right into the ego-trap that their enemies have set for them. Why? Because they’re any easy target.
The talk radio goofs are all just radio celebrities. They lead opinions/movements in the same manner as [insert current Hollywood "it" girl/boy]. It’s the fans’ adoration of the on-air personas that causes them to thoughtlessly repeat what they heard on the radio at lunchtime. Just ask anyone who has proudly proclaimed that he or she has been “Hannitized”.
Why not turn the popular focus towards the ego of Rush Limbaugh and the cult of personality that tunes into his show every day? One benefit is that it shifts the spotlight away from the cult of personality that is devoted to Obama. More importantly, in the funhouse of media reality, it connects to the talk radio goofs themselves anyone who agrees with the often correct criticism leveled by Right radio. “You must be a Rush Limbaugh fan” is an easy way to shut the ears of anyone listening to a thoughtful conservative at a party.
I remember when the Cato Institute purchased a front-page article (in the New York Times perhaps??) that diagreed with the President about bailouts/the economy.
I believe that a repputable conservative magazine, such as American Conservative, should publish a front page article denouncing Limbaugh as the ’supposed spokesperson’ of Conservatism.
I’d be willing to donate some money for it, too…
Any thoughts???
“Obama didn’t ‘target’ Limbaugh, he claimed that the latter is the leader of the conservative movement.”
Well, to be fair, he didn’t even do that.
He told GOP Congresscritters, in a closed-door meeting, that they couldn’t just parrot Rush Limburgh and still claim to be acting in the country’s best interests.
It was after that quote was leaked that the merde hit the fan, as senior GOP official after senior GOP official first tried to distance themselves from Limburgh, then recieved a telling off on Limburgh’s show, then raced to the microphone to say how much they agreed with Limburgh and respected his leadership role.
The Obama Administration has taken advantage of the GOP’s woes by stirring the pot a little, but the major cause behind the Limburgh Disaster has been the realisation that it’s based on a true story – Rush Limburgh really does have more influence and control over the affections of the Republican Base than any of its elected officials, and they really do have to kiss his ring when he says they should.
For a major political party in a country that very recently rejected everything Limburgh stands for, that’s more than humiliating, it’s damned well suicidal.
This Canadian loves all that Rush did for thinking conservative Americans and their causes. His reach of large audiences and important demographics has defined indeed public political contention.
Yet he went a little wrong some years ago in becoming more republican then conservative. He also was loyal to the passion for Israel of the whole establishment.
Now he is attacked by a Jewish Canadian/American for being unprofitable to conservatism. Sad to say but Rush is reaping his due reward for his support of neo-conservatism. Stabbed in the back just as American conservatism was by neo conservatism.
Don’t worry Rush. This Israeli Canuck is of the same crowd who were the drafters of the Iraq and republican party disasters. Where they are aiming is where you want to be.
How many liberal undercover agents on the GOP site?