RSS Feed MenuOur friends at the Corner this week administered a memorable scolding to the Cato Institute’s Jerry Taylor for expressing doubts about the wisdom of accepting Rush Limbaugh as the voice and face of the conservative movement. (Michael Moynihan offers a helpful summary of the contretemps on the Reason website.)
As the blog debate continued, El Rushbo himself stepped in to remind us of exactly what it is that conservatives are accepting when they follow him. From Limbaugh’s May 14 broadcast*:
He [President Obama] is every bit the radical leftist he’s always been. This [the responsibilities of office] isn’t changing his mind about anything. What is happening, if anything, is that the import of his job, you know, he’s got a very fine line to walk. I was just talking about this. His base loves anything that inflames anti-American opinion. During the campaign he inflamed anti-American opinion. As a senator he voted to inflame anti-American opinion. In his early days as president he ran around the world apologizing, inflaming and encouraging anti-American opinion.
But now, I’m telling you, somebody got to him, because, look, he followed his instincts. His instincts were to release the [prisoner abuse] pictures. His instincts were to let terrorists go in the United States on the street. Somebody somewhere said, “Wait a minute, for your own self-preservation, you can’t release these pictures. You’re in the Senate, you’re on the presidential campaign talking about how all this torture has ruined our image. Well, you’re America now, pal. If you release the pictures, it’s going to hurt you politically.” Don’t mistake a political calculation — Karl Rove said the other night that this bunch spends two hours a night in the White House going over the day’s polling results, to figure out what to do and where to be and what language to put on the teleprompter for The Messiah to repeat, two hours a night. So what has happened here, somebody said it’s going to harm you. Remember, everything’s about him. These pictures are gonna harm you. You want to harm America, you’re taking care of that domestically. If you want to harm America, just keep doing your domestic policy and save your butt with these pictures. And don’t release these prisoners. The Germans wouldn’t take ‘em, the French, Spain. No, to answer your question, he’s not learning the truth. He’s having to set himself aside in one area, and it’s gotta be painful. I’m sure Michelle is giving him grief up there in the residence like you can’t believe.
Those two bolded sentences highlight an increasing theme of the Limbaugh broadcast: that President Obama knowingly seeks to do harm to the United States of America. The president even wants to release terrorists to roam free in America’s streets!
There was a lot of wild political hate expressed during the Bush years. I was there, I remember. But short of the crazy 9/11 denialists, no prominent liberal figure – certainly nobody as central to the left as Limbaugh is central to the right – ever accused either President Bush or Vice President Cheney of wishing to do harm to America. To have accused them of such a thing would have been to accuse them of treason.
And yet here is Rush saying it. Maybe he just mis-spoke, got carried away. But he mis-speaks in this way quite a lot.
A half-century ago, many conservatives followed another leader who accused the president of the day of treason. The leader was Robert Welch and the president was Dwight Eisenhower, whom Welch termed a “conscious and dedicated agent of the communist conspiracy.” We all remember that Bill Buckley defied and opposed Welch. Today we admire Bill for doing it. We forget that Bill’s actions nearly wrecked National Review, as Welch’s followers canceled their subscriptions and accused Buckley himself of adhering to the conspiracy. That seems funny in retrospect, but it was not funny at the time.
The writers at NR have not forgotten this history. And yet that has not prevented us all from reliving it. I fear that the costs of indulging paranoid talk in the conservative world will be far greater than ever they were in the 1960s. Back then, sensible Republicans could ignore Robert Welch. But Limbaugh is omnipresent – and now our former vice president has told us he is to be preferred as a party leader to Colin Powell. Powell – the man who could have had our party presidential nomination for the asking in 1996! The man that Cheney’s administration sent to Congress and the United Nations to make the case against Iraq in 2003, because that administration knew that Powell commanded more respect and deference than any other administration member, not excepting the president himself.
The blogger Matt Yglesias made a telling point the other day. The assertion that Limbaugh leads the conservative movement began as a slur, an attack point. It is the weakness of our Republican elected leaders – and the indulgence of those who should be our conservative intellectual leaders – that has elevated the slur into plausible reality.
* (The broadcast also has some disobliging things to say about David Brooks and me, which I note for the sake of disclosure, but that are not pertinent to the issue discussed here.)
PhilByler // May 18, 2009 at 9:35 pm
To InTheMiddle12 re your 7:18 PM post: You have picked a bad moniker because you are NOT in the middle, but very much on the left. You are just wrong about everything you write, which is nothing more than left wing garbage.a) The Iraq War was the right decision. What is irresponsible is your failure in not considering what the world would have be like if Saddam were still in power. By dint of what our magnificent troops have done (and that does include my older son now in his second tour of duty in Iraq), a brutal, murderous and terror-supporting dictatorship was removed and a secular democracy is in its place in the Middle East. The congressional authorization for use of force contained 22 reasons to remove Saddam, and almost in Iraq everyone in Congress, GOP and Democrat alike, voted for the war — rightly. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN arms resolutions, and Saddam was using real torture against his own people. Weapons of mass destruction was one of many reasons, but it was important and true: Saddam used WMD against his own people, had WMDs (Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada has spoken frequesntly about that fact) and intended to get more WMDs. And yes, as Christopher Hitchens once wrote, Saddam did go uranium shoppipng in Africa. Saddam government documents showed that.b) Deregulation did not cause the financial crisis. Government did. It was not deregulation that caused the subprime mortgage problems; it was Government programs that encouraged reckless lending.
PhilByler // May 18, 2009 at 9:36 pm
c) American goodwill in the world was not destroyed during the Bush years, despite the hype you leftists were responsible for. We did not have torture as a policy. That is a leftist lie. Based on legal advice that it was not torture under the 1994 statute, we did waterboard three top al Qaeda leaders in 2002 who were responsible for 9/11 because we needed and in fact obtained information to prevent a second wave of 9/11-type attacks. The abuses at Abu Ghraib were uncovered and punished by the U.S. Army and did not represent the good work that our troops did. The Iraq War turned around in our favor because the Iraqis came to see the radical jihadists as killers, which they were, and because the American troops were the protectors. And while you say that American goodwill declined during the Bush years, Germany and France both voted in office more pro-American leaders in that period. d) The GOP is NOT demoralized and scattered, but regrouping. Please stay confident about your leftist and Democrat compatriots. In the years ahead, you are going to face a very effective GOP.e) New Orleans, much of which is built below sea level, was destroyed by a major hurricane, and the Democrat Mayor and Democrat Governor were worthless in response. The federal effort could certainly have been better, but the failures of the Democrat state and local officials were what guaranteed the situation to be as bad as it was. In neighboring Mississippi, with a Republican Governor, matters were under control.f) The Schiavo case showed the secular left to be without morals; it was too much for Jesse Jackson. Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death by order of a state judge relying on the hearsay testimony of the “husband” who was living with another woman with whom he had children and disregarding the pleas of the woman’s parents. Excuse me, but talking about “invading family life” is dishonest.g) I don’t know what you are referrng to when you cite the branches of government, but I will guess you had in mind the U.S. Supreme Court’s unprincipled and unwise decisions in Hamdan and Boumediene. I am a lawyer and can elaborate, but I will refer to here to Andy McCarthy’s excellent analyses on the subject available at the National Review Online. h) The military is NOT broken. That is another leftist lie. My two sons are military officers (one Army and one Marines), and we laugh at people like you who say such dumb things. Sorry, but when you state a lie like this, you don’t deserve a more restrained response from military people. i) I don’t know what you are talking about when you say that there was a complete unwillingness to speak with those who disagreed. That’s not true. But since you refer to Obama’s Notre Dame speech, I will say that on the subject of abortion, (i) Obama’s radical pro-abortion record makes him unsuitable to be arguing that people ought to seek “common ground”; and (ii) the only way possibly to find “common ground” is to overrule Roe v. Wade and allow elected state representatives to reach legislative compromise. I am sure pro-abortion advocates such as you applaud the Notre Dame President, but don’t call him “Christian” in giving Obama a forum. The “Christian” position is pro-life — period. I don’t find your comments fascinating or even interesting. It is the same old left wing stuff. America will be rejecting it in the years ahead.
kroner // May 18, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Mike K: “So you would have done what with Saddam after 9/11 ?”Has the myth of an Al Qaeda-Iraq link really persisted on the right even among the otherwise politically savvy? This is an honest question.
gary4205 // May 19, 2009 at 12:27 am
To paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan:It’s not that moderates are ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so! Frum, you and morons like you need to sit down and shut up, you’ve done enough to destroy the once proud GOP brand! Go find something shiny.
KendraWilder // May 19, 2009 at 1:34 am
What might be a more accurate assessment does not in any way shape or form involve Rush Limbaugh’s opinion of President Obama’s apparent tearing down of the Unites States of America for some political agenda’s purpose.Much more accurate, in my not so humble opinion, Mr. David Frum, would be to suggest quite strongly that you have an agenda which, out of necessity, requires the taking out of Mr. Limbaugh and discrediting him and eliminating him as a rival in the realm of Conservative Leadership.You have this website, the New Majority, which clearly intends to take the initiative in reshaping the GOP, with you as its titular leader. Standing in the way are true GOP Conservatives, with Rush Limbaugh as their acknowledge ‘leader’, within certain parameters given that he has no desire to ‘lead’ the GOP in its contortionist rebirths among the various factions that are attempting to gain control of the GOP’s course and direction.So, to eliminate your psychotically misperceived rival, Rush Limbaugh, you have been systematically attempting to distort public perception of the motivations behind why he does what he does on his show, in public speaking, and in responses to the Mainstream Media’s requests for statements or Q&A sessions.Then what, Mr. Frum? If you, in the highly unlikely to nearly impossible chance, eliminated Mr. Limbaugh as an impediment to your goals, who’s next? Mark Levin? Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck? All of them have a considerably large following. You’d have to take them all out one by one to have a chance at gaining the numbers of followers for your “New Majority” to even have a ghost of a chance to be able to truthfully call your “New Majority” a majority at all within the GOP.It’s readily apparent that Rush Limbaugh is the biggest and hardest target with the largest “following”. Truthfully, after reading your website and your articles for several months, I’m convinced that you’re on some induced ego trip that has gotten so out of hand that your attacks on Limbaugh and others have taken on a rather desperate tone. Your assessments and accusations don’t sound reasonable at all, and actually smack of Twilight Zone insanity.Sorry, Dude. You’re not fooling anyone. You haven’t got a chance, especially with the lame and sophomoric tack you’ve taken.
wasdisgruntled // May 19, 2009 at 3:56 am
It’s people like Mike K who are the problem with the Conservative base. They don’t do their homework and, when confronted with something that doesn’t fit into their ideological box, they disregard it as “left-wing bias” or “liberal media” driven. Well, guess what? Like most of Mike K’s entries, it’s the Limbaughs and Hannitys that fuel this wealth of misinformation designed to keep people like him inflamed and eager to hang on these two’s (one-semester college dropouts’) every word…all the while generating millions in revenue from advertising for the station owners and millions for these two broadcasters…Union members (NABIT), I might add.By incorporating the age-old adage of deflection, “liberal media”, guys like Limbaugh utilize this falsehood to their benefit. (Of course, Mike K, you realize that the term “liberal media” was coined by a young Reagan speechwriter in order to deflect all of the criticism he was receiving in the early part of his first term, right? It’s a simple, pre-emptive tactic…I tell everyone in the room you’re a big, fat liar and you spend the rest of the day trying to convince them otherwise……good luck with that.) It gets to the point where the gullible people who listen to Limbaugh’s drivel no longer know up from down or true from false because they don’t trust even the most upstanding investigative reporting since it comes from (and I love this one) the MSM. So many acronyms, so little time. ACORN!!! Boo! I scared you!A true Conservative is an intelligent, open-minded one; someone who cares to take the time to find the truth by weighing a variety of sources. I think that’s what Mr. Frum is talking about. Hanging your hat on a career radio man whose sole purpose is seeking fame, fortune and grand importance is no different that doing the same with a career politician – both will manipulate them for their own personal gain.Oh, and as an example of Mike K’s bloviated and regurgitated remarks from the likes of Limbaugh and like-minded websites, I give you the truth:”Military Service Doubles Suicide RiskScienceDaily (June 12, 2007) Former military personnel are twice as likely to kill themselves as people who have not seen combat reports a study in the July issue of Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.The results suggest that doctors need to look out for signs of suicidal intentions in soldiers returning from service in Afghanistan and Iraq.Researchers in the United States followed up 320,000 men aged over 18 years for 12 years and found that those who had served in the armed forces at some time between 1917 and 1994 were twice as likely to die from suicide compared with men in the general population.”But hey, don’t believe Science Daily…I’m sure they’re just a bunch of “librul intillechewals”. Sheesh. Let’s take our party back, thinkers.
PhilByler // May 19, 2009 at 4:14 am
To kroner re your 11:21 PM post: There is not a myth on the Right about a link between Saddam and 9/11. What the Left fails to grasp, but was in the 9/11 Commission report, is that there was a link between Saddam and support of radical jihadist terrorism. Saddam, among other things, allowed terrorist training camps to operate in Iraq, paid for suicide bombers and had an agreement with al Qaeda contemplating arms transfer. Just because Saddam was not in on the 9/11 operation did not mean that he was not involved in supporting radical jihadist activities. He clearly was; and the concern was that he would pass on to the jihadists nuclear weapons that he was intent upon and was fairly far advanced in developing.
InTheMiddle12 // May 19, 2009 at 4:37 am
wasdisgruntled: Thank you, thank you, thank you. It’s ironic because I was writing a post with facts about the reality of the military suicide rate (as of 01/09) being the highest rates (from 2008) in the history of the records, in an attempt to respond to the myths below, but, reading your post said it all, far better than I could.I am so sick of the ‘non-intellectual’ wing of the party acting like bullies and inhibiting genuine debate and dialogue. They diminish the integrity of what was a great party. Thanks for hanging in there with me!
cousinavi // May 19, 2009 at 4:59 am
David Frum is Better Than Tucker Carlson, But He’s No Rush Limbaugh!You see, Frum? Youre not even a real conservative! How could you be? Youre one of them inteleckshul elites (Christ, wait til she finds out youre Canadian!)Forget the National Review magazines are deaddeader than dead.Dead like cocaine at James Spaders house in Pulp Fiction. Rush Limbaugh is the new Bill Buckley hes the heroin from the Hartz Mountains in Germany. And when you shoot it you will know where those extra brains went.Mi casa, su casa.Muchos gracias.Carville was right. The Dems will rule for 40 years, and what remains of the GOP will follow Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity, Steele, Gingrich, Cheney, Jindal, Boehner, Bachmann and a cast of idiot extras too numerous to mention onto the heap of failure and ranting obscurity reduced to a radio show and appearances at county fairs to introduce The Knack.Read the rest: http://cousinavi.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/david-frum-better-than-tucker-carlson/
balconesfault // May 19, 2009 at 5:49 am
“Saddam, among other things, allowed terrorist training camps to operate in Iraq, paid for suicide bombers and had an agreement with al Qaeda contemplating arms transfer. “I’m sorry – I accept the “paid for suicide bombers” (actually, he made payments to the families of suicide bombers) … but I have no evidence of the other allegations that I’m sure was not obtained via torture.I thought the 9-11 report actuall quashed those allegations:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/To me, the idea that a meglomaniac like Saddam would hand over to Islamic jihadists the power to kill him (as any WMD transfer would do) is cartoonish.But who knows – perhaps the guy who was so afraid of an American invasion that he scrubbed his country clean of WMDs would have been willing to “roll the dice” and give a bunch of fundamentalists who hated his secular rule the keys to his destruction.I will grant, I’m increasingly convinced that Limbaugh followers do understand meglomania better than I do.
sinz54 // May 19, 2009 at 6:52 am
Phil Byler: At least you’re willing to confront the 800 pound gorilla in the room: The unpopularity of the Iraq War debacle (and yes, it WAS a debacle), which erased the public’s perception of the GOP as the right party on national security.I don’t want to rehash Iraq again here. You would lose the argument, because your arguments have been exposed as false many times.I know you’re proud of your son’s duty. I’m proud of him too. But unlike you, I am NOT proud of the thinking in the Bush Administration that ended up sending him to Iraq. I would have been just as proud if your son had gone to Afghanistan and put a bullet in Osama bin Laden’s head. But I want to recommend a couple of policy changes looking forward:NEVER again will America launch a pre-emptive invasion of another country based solely on extrapolations of past behavior of that country. There has to be hard evidence that another country is actively preparing (NOT just planning) to attack us, before we take action.And NEVER again will America try a nation-building scheme so grandiose as to attempt to convert a nation which has no history of Western-style democracy or the notion of unalienable rights, into a modern Western-style democracy. Pouring our blood and treasure into stopping Muslim fundamentalists from beating their wives is NOT a conservative position. Pouring our blood and treasure into stopping Sunnis and Shiites from slaughtering each other is NOT a conservative position. It’s none of our business how Muslims live. It only becomes our business when some of them plot to attack us. And that is our ONLY business.Let’s avoid foreign entanglements. If necessary, LET the enemy take the first shot–and then it will be undeniable that we should retaliate against THAT enemy (NOT some other enemy that we also happen to dislike) and destroy it utterly.That was FDR’s policy with Pearl Harbor.That was the bipartisan policy of deterrence during the Cold War–even though it was understood that a Soviet first strike would kill millions of Americans. We still didn’t try for a pre-emptive strike, instead preparing to ride out the Soviet attack while retaliating.And it should remain our policy: Ride out and retaliate.
Bic667 // May 19, 2009 at 9:10 am
For the record, those “crazy 9/11 denialists” made up approximately 35% of the Democratic party as of the 2007 Rasmussen report.That’s 35% of democrats who openly believed Bush had prior knowledge of the event of 9/11 and allowed them to happen, if not participated in.To compare, only 39% stated they believed he had know prior knowledge. 26% were unsure either way.So in effect you could say as many Democrats were 9/11 denialists as weren’t in 2007.
InTheMiddle12 // May 19, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Bic: For the record, those Dems trusted President Bush and the lies that were being told, until they realized, within a year or 2 at the most, that they were lies and there was no basis for invading Iraq. I’d be more interested in seeing how the curve of Democratic Support, by month/date evaporated and just when the GOP curve started to turn against the Bush/Cheney Iraq war. That will give you far more insight into where things stand today, and why.
MSheridan // May 19, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Many people below have taken issue with something Mr. Frum didn’t actually write. He didn’t say that no leading figures on the left ever accused Bush of damaging the nation. As has been repeatedly pointed out, such a claim would be ridiculous. In fact, what Mr. Frum said was that nobody as prominent on the left as Rush is on the right ever accused Bush of DELIBERATELY damaging the nation. Look at the words of Rush he pulled out for emphasis: “His [Obama's] instincts were to let terrorists go in the United States on the street.” “You want to harm America, you’re taking care of that domestically.”To assert that Obama is a crypto-Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, and secret despiser of America is completely different from saying that you believe his policies will ruin the nation. Rush and his apologists have claimed in Rush’s defense that he only attacked Obama’s policies, not Obama the man. However, listening to or reading Rush’s words (and there are many examples), that’s clearly not the case.
Bic667 // May 19, 2009 at 2:24 pm
ITM12, so your defense of Frum’s contention that no one on the left ever attacked Bush, and my providing of stats that at least a third of the Democratic party fell into Frum’s self defined “crazy” category is to bring up one of the most repeated attacks (even used last week by Speaker Pelosi to try and remove her foot from her mouth); that is to say that Bush lied to start the Iraq war. And why exactly did he ‘lie’ to start the war? (Remember, in Mr. Frum’s world no one on the left even impugned President Bush’s motives or intentions so answer carefully.)FYI, every single partisan and independent review has found absolutely no proof of lying on the part of the previous administration in terms of the build up for the war. In fact they have pretty much uniformly found that the failure of the intelligence community to fully comprehend Iraq’s true capabilities was a global effort, meaning every known intelligence gathering agency believed the same thing that was presented by Bush to be true or at the least, highly probable. Of course the fact Saddam’s own generals also believed his abilities to be far more advanced than they were didn’t help.All this being KNOWN to be true, the dedicated true believers (such as yourself) still cling to the “Bush Lied” mantra.It even helps bring up yet another direct example of a prominent Dem attacking Bush, which of course didn’t happen in Mr. Frum’s universe. After Sen. Rockefeller completed the senate review of the preamble to the war immediately started attacking Bush even though his own report in fact finds on almost all fronts that the President’s claims were “generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.” The report even intentionally ignored all prewar statements from Rockefeller himself and other prominent Dems which echoed or in many cases predated Bushes because those pesky facts would have made their attacks less viable.So instead of simply finding an example of a entertainer attacking a sitting President (which Olbermann did on a nightly baseis for pretty much the entire time) you instead find yet another example of an elected and ‘respected’ Democrat official doing so.
Bic667 // May 19, 2009 at 2:34 pm
MSheridan, saying “His [Obama's] instincts were to let terrorists go in the United States on the street.” was a statement meant to attack Obama is quite true. It directly questions his ability to make the serious decisions a president is faced with daily. What is also true is that it is factually backed up. Until the uproar from the people that was the Obama administration’s leading plan for how to handle the chinese combatants that no other country wanted to take. Are you trying to now contend that Obama did not see that as a viable option until the opinion polls came out firmly against it?
MSheridan // May 19, 2009 at 2:59 pm
To be perfectly frank, I have no idea. I have never seen anything whatsoever indicating that the government under Bush or Obama is or was ever interested in settling them here. Under Bush, there was at one point a legal ruling that they had to be physically present (not settled) for a trial against them to go forward. The Justice Department successfully got a stay on that ruling before it was implemented. Additionally, your word of combatant is perhaps imperfect. It was September of last year when their “enemy combatant” status was legally removed. As I’m sure you’re aware, they are accused of no crimes against the U.S. or U.S. forces–the reason they were imprisoned is that they were receiving training at a Taliban camp, and it is known that they planned to use that training against China. That is, they ARE aspiring terrorists/revolutionaries, but not against us. That distinction doesn’t make them attractive immigrants, of course, and I don’t myself support settling them here. It seems completely unnecessary to worry about it, however, as early this year Canada indicated it is willing to take some of them and Munich offered to take all the rest of them off our hands. Hence, the debate here always seemed quite one-sided, with many arguing that they couldn’t come, vs…..no one, so far as I could see.
MSheridan // May 19, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I should have said “no one speaking for the government.” I’m aware that a few human rights groups were pushing for them to be resettled here.
A. Wilson // May 20, 2009 at 2:03 am
For all the disdain Frum seems to have for Rush, I think it’s pretty clear that he’s right there listening to all three hours five days a week. “Oh, sorry, gotta go now, important appointment you know”, he says to anybody on the line at noon eastern.Pen in hand, listening carefully for something he can use to get attention, that rare little nugget he can turn into an article to get more than a handful of comments. Maybe even parlay it into a cable TV appearance. That’d be sweet!!How much different, really, is Frum’s appropriation — from Al Franken and his book “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot”??In both cases, unflattering pictures of their love/hate sugar-daddy prominently displayed. Do these two fist-bump when they pass each other at the airport?Cut the cord, David. Focus on the real problems — those being that our media is composed almost entirely of uncritical democrat voters, and the current occupant, who is systematically and fundamentally “changing” this country for the worse — regardless of his underlying motivation for doing so.
Bic667 // May 20, 2009 at 7:57 am
MSheridan, the Obama administration announced their plan to resettle at least 7 of the Uighurs detainees within the US, even against protests from Homeland Security; and that was as of last month.
sinz54 // May 20, 2009 at 9:23 am
MSheridan sez: “That is, they ARE aspiring terrorists/revolutionaries, but not against us.”Oh, brother.They’re not “aspiring.” They trained in terrorist training camps. They are terrorists who just haven’t pulled the trigger quite yet.Chinese tourists or businessmen visiting that part of America would have to fear for their lives. So might Chinese-Americans who could be mistaken for Chinese nationals.How come you liberals opposed aiding the Contras in Nicaragua, but now you’re prepared to give asylum to trained terrorists from China?
MSheridan // May 20, 2009 at 11:30 am
Bic667, I googled your info and found you are correct on this (with perhaps a tiny quibble on the “at least 7″ terminology, as it looks like at most 7). I hadn’t previously seen any of this in the news and had not deliberately omitted any of the facts from my previous post. Even now, there isn’t much on this in the usual news sites.I’m not backing away from my earlier statement that I’d much prefer to see the Uighurs settled somewhere outside our borders. That said, I consider it completely unacceptable to keep them locked up indefinitely or repatriated to China, either, so I recognize the difficulty of the situation. If you or sinz54 (who seems to think he understands my motives better than I do) have some better ideas, please present them.However, interesting as this side-discussion is, look back on Rush’s words. If you read through the paragraphs quoted on this page, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that Rush is saying that Obama wants to harm America, that Obama is a deliberate enemy of America. Whether you agree with that conclusion or not (I don’t, myself) is not actually the point in question. David Frum’s point was that although many on the left despised our last President and thought he’d done serious damage to the U.S., there weren’t any progressive voices as prominent as Rush who claimed that Bush WANTED harm to come to America, and Frum’s further point was that when someone as visible and important in the conservative movement as Rush Limbaugh makes that claim about Obama, it damages the credibility of that movement among the conservatives and centrists it vitally needs to retain and attract.There is not one demographic measured by the Gallup Poll in which Republicans have gained strength since 2001, and the ONLY demographic in which they have not lost ground is those who attend church frequently, although they’ve come close to retaining the same share of self-identified conservatives and citizens aged 65 years or more. Nationally, the number of self identified liberals in or leaning towards the Republican Party has declined from 17% of all liberals to 9% and the number of self-identified moderates who are or lean towards the Republican Party has declined from 37% of all moderates to 28%. Self-identified conservatives who are Republicans have dropped only 1%, from 66% of all conservatives to 65%.http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspxI’ve seen many claims on this site and elsewhere that Republicans need to become more conservative to regain popularity. The data would seem to indicate that is not the case. Certainly, allowing the party to headline Rush’s brand of conservatism, containing a strong streak of paranoia regarding an incredibly popular President’s loyalty to the country, seems ill-advised at best and disastrous at worst, even aside from its influence on policy.
VerityJones // May 20, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I’m with Frum on this one. Rush Limbaugh has “a character issue.” He repeatedly bears false witness and I don’t understand why that doesn’t make social conservatives sick. Here’s what Obama had to say to Europe about anti-Americanism: “But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad…. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.”If a conservative said that, Limbaugh would shout it out with pride! Because Obama said it, he deliberately ignores it so he can continue lying about Obama in order to frighten ordinary Americans. To me, it’s just sickening. It’s un-American to engage in that kind of… tribalism. What I grew up believing about America is that we are an advanced nation, one nation, indivisible, committed to real principles of truth and justice. We’re not two tribes committed to tribal loyalty no matter how many lies or character assassinations have to be made. The mendacious Limbaugh is this (tribal) political hostility personified and, to me, he represents a disease in American politics.Why support and defend a person like Limbaugh who so is so ugly and so consistently has to lie to maintain his positions? The only thing I can think is that the people who defend him are basically defending their own right to enjoy the anger he stirs up in them. How do you justify clinging to that when there’s evidence that what you’re angry about isn’t even true and, further, it is not only dividing your political party, it’s hurting your country?
Patrick // May 22, 2009 at 6:38 am
Well said, VerityJones.
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Frum: History Began When I Decided to Remake Conservatism in My Image // Jul 28, 2009 at 11:47 am
[...] May, while criticizing Rush Limbaugh, David Frum wrote “nobody as central to the left as Limbaugh is central to the right – ever accused either [...]