Dear conservative bloggers, Obama's mentioning of Rush does not make him Nixon OR Hitler
The sad, pathetic attempt to try to gin up sympathy for Rush Limbaugh is beyond absurd. First of all, all the Obama White House has ever said is that Congressional Republicans need to realize that they need to stop listening to Limbaugh and start working with the White House and Congressional Democratic leaders if they want to be heard. They haven't threatened Rush with rendition, or audited him, or revealed his confidential psychiatric files, or even threatened to take him off the air. They haven't actually attacked Rush beyond suggesting that a radio talk show host is probably not suited to be the face, voice, and leadership of the Republican Party.
Matt Hurley at Weapons of Mass Discussion tries two debate cliches in one: a slippery slope argument that makes reference to Hitler's Holocaust:
First they came for Rush Limbaugh...and you said nothing because Rush is a mega-star and he should be able to defend himself.
Yes, not speaking out in defense of the lunancy that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party is exactly like German dissidents who failed to speak out against the mass arrest, imprisonment, and murder of innocent Jews, homosexuals, communists, and gypsies during Hitler's reign.
The slippery slope cliche is the hallmark of a slippery mind: one who know that if you have to argue on the actual facts of a given situation, you'll lose so instead change the argument into some absurdity and then criticize the opposition position based on the absurdity you rhetorically created. It's like all those "flat tax" Republicans who are now equating Obama's proposed 5% reduction in the amount of itemized deductions to a total repeal of the home mortgage interest and charitable contribution deductions (even though a flat tax would actually REQUIRE such a total repeal.)
Then Matt tries the "shoe on the other foot" tactic:
Let's ponder what it would have been like if the Bush administration had similarly targeted Michael Moore. There would have been outrage like you would not believe from our friends on the left. But since it is their guy doing it, it's a-okay with them.
Rhetorical questions are a great debating device, so long as there's no objective answer. From Friday's Washington Post:
Mark McKinnon, a top adviser in President George W. Bush's campaigns, acknowledged the value of picking a divisive opponent. "We used a similar strategy by making Michael Moore the face of the Democratic Party," he said of the documentary filmmaker. "That's why we gave him credentials to cover the 2004 convention and then turned the spotlight on him."
Indeed, Michael Moore's own website is chocked full of instances in which the Bush White House from the White House briefing room podium and in public interviews tried to link Moore to the Democratic Party:
"And it's just puzzling why Democratic leaders are trying to
defend the views of people like Michael Moore ..."
– Scott McClellan, January 24th, 2005
"Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the
extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party."
– Scott McClellan, November 17th, 2005
(Of course, as Robert Elsiberg at HuffPo points out, there's one big difference between the Democrats and Michael Moore and the Republicans and Rush Limbaugh: The Democrats have never apologized to Michael Moore for disagreeing with him nor are they hesitant to publicly disagree with Moore.)
Having first laughed off the White House's allegation that the Republican Party was being led by Limbaugh, the Republican Party seems to have since been hell-bent in publicly demonstrating that the White House was correct. Since "no" to everything Obama is not a message (let alone a popular one), the Republicans have no message to defend. Because their opposition to all things Obama is based on a political calculation to chip at his approval in time for the '10 midterms, the Republicans cannot publicly defend the strategy behind their non-message as Americans cannot support such a cynical political tactic at a moment of national peril. Limbaugh is such a polarizing figure, they can't even defend the messenger. With no messege or messenger to defend, all the conservatives can do it try to attack the other side's tacctic of merely pointing at that there is no Republican leadership beyond an uncompromising radio talk show host who has publically stated he wants Obama, and thereby, America to fail to overcome this economic crisis.
But no amount of Nixon and Hitler references, subtle or otherwise, is going to avoid the ridiculous notion that there's something sinister in what the White House did in mentioning to Limbaugh and pointing out that the Republicans were all hat and no cattle. But that isn't stopping people like Matt Hurley from trying.
Whatever one's view of Messrs. Bush, Limbaugh & Obama, respectively, surely we can agree that this kind of targeting of a citizen for ridicule that is clearly aimed at achieving political gains is - at best - unseemly at a time when the U.S. economy is shrinking and unemployment (disproportionately among those who delivered the widest electoral margins for President Obama's victory last November, I note) is rising.
The incompetent Scott McClellan may have, on more than one occasion, fired off a few lame throwaway lines about Michael Moore, but I don't recall any coordinated effort by the Bush White House and media personalities to destroy anyone's reputation in such a dishonest manner as that which has been employed as a tactic by the so-called bringers of change. Weak.
Three points:
1.) Anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension skills can go to Rush Limbaugh's website and read Mr. Limbaugh's words in context - and thereby see for his- or herself that the latest effort to discredit Limbaugh is based on a lie, as have so many others been. You wanted President Bush to fail. So what?
2.) At some point, the Bush-did-it-first excuses will wear thin, even among the likes of BSB readers. I predict we'll reach that point right around the time the national rate of unemployment hits double digits and projected federal deficits exceed $2 trillion annually. By the way, this is around the time Democrats in Washington will start talking about tax hikes on those citizens for whom tax hikes were previously ruled out. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that we don't have enough rich people to pay for all the things the President has proposed within the context of a balanced federal budget. Bills get paid.
3.) It's not just Limbaugh who has been targeted, he's simply the highest-profile example. First it was Joe the Plumber, a citizen who dared to ask a question of a candidate for President. Then it was Santelli. Then Cramer. Warren Buffett's been critical of a lot of President Obama's anti-growth policy prescriptions lately, is he next? Likely not, this silly little game has a short shelf-life and I suspect the Obama folks are smart enough to know it. Plus, Democrat billionaire Buffett's probably not one to mess with...
fmpolitics.com - Free Market Politics
1) I didn't want Bush to fail. My writings are public domain. Find where I ever prayed for Bush to fail. I didn't support his decision to take this country to war in Iraq, but I didn't want him to fail. Never. Second, you're "I'm taking Rush out of context" doesn't exist. Third, you apparently missed the quote from former Bush strategist who said that the entire Bush communication shop deployed an organized and consistent strategy to link Michael Moore and the Democratic Party very similar to what the Obama White House did with Rush. They mentioned they even gave Moore creditials to the RNC Convention for the sole purpose of turning the spotlight on him during the convention.
2) This isn't a "Bush did it first excuse" at all. This is calling nonsense that there's something sinister about criticizing an opposition party that is putting the rantings of a partisan, uncompromising talk-radio host over working with the democratically elected government at a time of nation peril. The rest of your commentary falls under the "slippery slope" arguments I mentioned in my post.
3) Limbaugh hasn't been "targeted", and that's insulting to people who have truly been targeted by the government for their views. John Lennon's deportation case comes to mind. All the White House has ever said is that the Republican Party is captive to Rush as he's the de facto leader of the Republican Party. That's hardly in dispute, nor is it really an attack on Rush, either.
Santelli and Cramer weren't attacked, either. Their criticism, like Buffet's, was merely responded to in response to direct questions from the media asking them to respond. Joe the Fraud wasn't ever "targeted" by Obama, his campaign, or the White House. Again, people pointed out his hypocracy of claiming Obama's tax plans would prevent him from buying a business (that he never bought) when the guy was a tax delinquent. He wasn't attacked because he asked Obama a question. He was attacked because he was a partisan hack who was put out there by the McCain campaign to use a surrogate to allege that Obama was an unpatriotic, socialist who was a sworn enemy of Israel.
Again, you seem to miss the entire point of the post. The fact that the Republican Party's opposition to everything Obama is because they can't stand up to a talk radio host isn't trivial. It's a sad state of the Republican Party, but it's hardly trivial. Nor is it "sinister" for the White House to state that truism.
You forget that Carville and Begala are employed by CNN, hence my reference to the White House coordinating with media personalities.
The assertion that Rush Limbaugh leads the Republican party following an election year in which John McCain was nominated for President is absurd. This is nonsense at a time when we can't afford nonsense. It is a creation of the Democrat-media axis - one, I note once more, that is based upon a lie, as any person who has heard or read firsthand Limbaugh's comments relative to the concept of President Obama's 'failure' and Limbaugh's support thereof is perfectly aware.
As for your personal desire for President Bush to fail - perhaps not fair on my part. When Bush cut taxes, he had to get Congress' approval first. Did you want him to succeed in that effort? When Bush invaded Iraq, he had to secure authorization and funding from Congress for the operation - including that of the Democrat Senate, which approved. Did you want him to succeed in that effort? Just two examples of many, I'm sure you get the point.
fmpolitics.com - Free Market Politics
FMP, I don't want to get into the middle of your and Modern's discussion, but I'd just like to you to abide by the words of Ohio's own Marcy Kaptur:
I've seen the entire Rush interview wherein he explains why he wants Obama to fail. Equating wanting Obama's plan to get the economy on track to wanting Bush to be denied his tax cuts or authority to go to war to Iraq is a ridiculous comparison.
Of course, once Bush had the authority to go to war I wanted him to succeed and have the funding needed to be successful.
Every time a GOP criticizes Limbaugh, there is an apology. It's gotten so bad than even Limbaugh joked about putting the DCCC's "Limbaugh Apology generator" on his website.
John McCain didn't lead the party in 2008 any more than he does now. Hell, John Boehner doesn't even lead the party. Rush Limbaugh, as evidenced by his untouchability to GOP criticism, his keynote CPAC speech, and the utter lack of anyone else is the leader of the GOP. Deal with it.