Posted on 03/07/2009 8:47:09 PM PST by Delacon
Full disclosure: Rush Limbaugh is a friend and benefactor of this magazine, as he was a friend of its founder. He has sometimes written for us. That friendship has, however, never prevented him from expressing disagreement with our writers when he felt it appropriate, or vice versa. The controversies of recent weeks, largely ginned up by Democrats, provide us with another opportunity to express both our friendship and our occasional disagreement.
The Democrats are trying to place Republicans in a bind by giving them a false choice: They can “kowtow” to Limbaugh, or they can denounce him as outside the realm of legitimate political discourse. If they choose the former course, they will appear weak. If they choose the latter one, they will offend conservatives and cripple their own ability to dissent from liberalism. Republicans should not play this game.
Limbaugh is not the Republican party’s leader, a role for which he would be ill-suited and which he has not expressed interest in filling. (If he were the party’s leader, John McCain would not have been its presidential nominee last year.) His views are not extreme and his manner is not, for that matter, particularly angry. (If people liked listening to partisan thuggery on the airwaves, Al Franken would have been a more successful radio host.) To address some recent smears: He did not compare Obama to Stalin, and he did not say he was rooting against the economy or the country. There are voices in American politics that should be assiduously marginalized and given no respect: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers; the Klan. What is going on here is a scurrilous attempt to place Limbaugh in their company.
The mere fact that Michael Steele, the Republican chairman, criticized Limbaugh was not objectionable. He could have made any number of criticisms without necessitating an apology. But to call Limbaugh’s show “ugly” — and worse, to make no protests while a CNN interviewer compared Republicans to Nazis — was gross. Steele fell right into the Democratic trap: He could either continue to stand by his calumny or give Democrats an opening to describe him as afraid of Limbaugh. In sticking by his remarks, Steele made the right choice, but he should not have placed himself in a position to have to make it.
All of the above said, some of Limbaugh’s recent remarks have struck us as unwise. Reacting to complaints about Bobby Jindal’s response to the State of the Union last week, Limbaugh slighted the importance of delivery — even though his own career is a testament to the importance of expressing ideas well. In his remarks to the Conservative Political Action Committee over the weekend, he said that now was not the time for conservatives to advance “better policy ideas” than those coming from President Obama. On his show he later explained that he meant that Republicans mostly need to fight Obama at the higher level of principle. But the two go hand in hand: When Limbaugh himself, just a few weeks ago, advanced a clever alternative to Obama's stimulus, what was he doing but showing how conservative principles can be applied to improve the American condition?
Limbaugh spoke critically of those who want conservatives to adapt their message to changing times, or to appeal to subsets of the population such as “Wal-Mart voters” or “female independents.” But successful political movements always alter their approaches as circumstances change, even if they maintain the same principles, just as Reagan agreed with the Goldwater of 1964 but did not run on his platform. Reagan also courted the voters who became known as “the Reagan Democrats” — a sociologically identifiable subset of the population. He advocated policies that would benefit middle-income voters and people who had not previously considered themselves Republicans, and explained how they would do so. If today’s Republicans were to do the same thing, would Limbaugh object?
We doubt it. His real concern, it seems to us, is that some people may attempt to water down conservative principles in the name of adaptation and the pursuit of popularity. But that is no reason to neglect the importance of building a popular conservatism that speaks to today’s concerns. It is a task to which Limbaugh can contribute greatly, as he has done for two decades.
The Democrats, meanwhile, think their attacks on Limbaugh are helping them politically. We understand that it is difficult to devise solutions to the financial crisis. But the Democrats won the election, and it is their job to come up with such solutions. We wish they spent as much time on it as they have spent in recent weeks talking about Limbaugh.
A tremendously brave article from National RINO Review!
Ill-suited? Hell no, Rush is exactly what this country needs and he is the MOST "well-suited" to deliver that message. This article from NRO is pathetic. I really think Rush is one of the only people out there with a brass set of Constitutional Balls, and no appetite for appeasement.
later...
First, we get the following:
“His real concern, it seems to us, is that some people may attempt to water down conservative principles in the name of adaptation and the pursuit of popularity.”
Then we get this:
“But that is no reason to neglect the importance of building a popular conservatism that speaks to today’s concerns.”
David Frum, is that you?
The article was going along well until that bit was slid in there.
I read that as meaning “We need to move to the left in order to become popular.”
If Err Amerika could have been profitable, it would have run the Democrat party. As is stands, they’ve had to settle for MoveOn.org.
The article straddles the fence trying to calm Rush while keeping the cocktail circuit RINO pundits happy.
You can only straddle the fence if you have no balls.
I think they’re wrong on the policy vs. principles front. Of course,any candidate needs policies. That’s a given. But the emphasis needs to be on principles. Look at how Obama won. He did not win on policies. He won on “Hope” and “Change.” You need an overridding theme during a campaign. McCain had none. GOP needs to bring back the idea of ‘Rugged Individualism’ and ‘Sovereignty.’
He advocated policies that would benefit middle-income voters and people who had not previously considered themselves Republicans, and explained how they would do so. If today’s Republicans were to do the same thing, would Limbaugh object?
This reads like Reagan chose his policies for the audience. He did not. He chose his explanation for the audience. There's a vast difference that the Big Tent types don't get.
National Review circulation: 155,000.
Rush Limbaugh audience: 14,000,000 - 25,000,000.
A fair article.
Rush’s “problem” is one I can relate to, as I often make a flip remark that to some, implies something I didn’t intend. His recent reference to the “Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Bill” is a perfect example. To some, it’s perfectly innocuous and clever, but to others it’s mean and “ugly”. We know what Rush meant, but especially for verbally adept people, the temptation to cross this line is always there.
And when he does, the Dems pounce and try to turn it into a weapon. Maybe what we do when Biden steps on his tongue seems the same to them. The last thing we need is more Policital Correctness, but when they control the media, it’s hard to avoid falling into these traps.
Ironically, this victory, repaid with surging interest on the part of the public, seems to have utterly escaped the bright-boys at NR.
Does little Billy Crystal write for the NRO.? You know, the guy with a look of extreme constipation on his face...
What about Rush...his format gives him the opportunity to give a voice for us all...God Speed!
Michael Steele shot himself and the GOP in the foot with his appearance on that show.
He’s put the GOP in a terrible position. On one hand, the GOP needs to fire his sorry behind, but, on the other hand, the Democrats will jump all over Steele being fired, and will say it just proves how “racist” the GOP is.
I don’t know how this will play out in the end, but Rahm has effectively hamstrung the GOP for a while.
I agree with most everything you wrote. I would disagree insomuch that I believe McCain did have a message - It was "I'm not really a Republican and I don't care much for conservatives". You can't win an election when you do a better job of denigrating your nominating party that your opponent.
I would add, that I don't take much umbrage with anything in the NR piece. Limbaugh, while entertaining and effective at rallying the base, doesn't win any popularity contest with the rest of the country. Whether it's insulting or not to conservatives, Limbaugh would make a horrible GOP leader - and he'd be the first to admit it.
I think the message for the GOP does have to be refined and contemporized. It's not enough to keep saying that we're not liberal and that we're not Obama. It has to be more compelling than saying ad nauseum "Small government, less taxes". That means practically nothing to the average voter.
The odds are strong that this will in fact happen. The MSM will forget they ever trashed Rush for it and shamelessly dub the bill with Kennedy's name. If he croaks before the bill is finished and passed, which is quite possible, it may very well be the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Act of 2009.""
Rahm, Begala, and Carville can get bent. If they can have such a citizen on their side, have at it.
The truth remains - The LIBS are extremely scared of RUSH and that is a GOOD thing. It’s so obvious b/c all they talk about is how they want to ban free speech to get RUSH off the air. These desperate parasites are coming unhinged because of his success! LOL!!! YES, Rush is the man! (=
Example: Here’s a comment from one of the most hate-filled bottom-feeder sites for libs and socialists, just tonight.
((”On his radio show Friday, Rush Limbaugh suggested that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) would be dead by the time health care reform legislation passes. “Before it’s all over, it’ll be called the Ted Kennedy memorial health care bill,” the talk show host says. He says President Obama has moved on to health care because he can’t solve the economic crisis. Listen, via Media Matters:
I know that Rush is a son-of-bitch but he has gone to far with his hate. We have to shut his ASS up now.”))
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.