Sunday, August 26, 2007

A Man of Peace

Rush Limbaugh, 8/21/07:

LIMBAUGH: Here's [caller] in Lake Orion, Michigan. Thank you for calling. Great to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. It's great to talk to you. I talked to you once before. I've been listening to you for a couple of years now, and I think I'm getting brighter, but there's a lot to be learned. I know I'm no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur. I mean, aren't we going to end up in a quagmire there? I mean, isn't it -- I don't understand. Can you enlighten me on this?

LIMBAUGH: Yeah. This is -- you're not going to believe this, but it's very simple. And the sooner you believe it, and the sooner you let this truth permeate the boundaries you have that tell you this is just simply not possible, the better you will understand Democrats in everything. You are right. They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur.

CALLER: Right.

LIMBAUGH: There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur?

CALLER: Uh, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble.

CALLER: Yes. Yes. The black population.

LIMBAUGH: Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.

CALLER: It's just -- I can't believe it's really that simple.


Whenever Limbaugh croaks forth this sort of refuse I always think back to this gem:

                                                February 1, 2007
Professor Ole Danbolt Mjos
Chairman,
Norwegian Nobel Institute
Henrik Ibsens Gate 51
NO-0255
Oslo, Norway

Dear Dr. Mjos:
Landmark Legal Foundation herewith submits the name of Rush Limbaugh as
an unsolicited nomination for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
We are offering this nomination for Mr. Limbaugh's nearly two decades
of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all
mankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin. We
fervently believe that these are the only real cornerstones of just and
lasting peace throughout the world.
Rush Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host in the
United States and one of the most popular broadcasters in the world. His
daily radio show is heard on more than 600 radio stations in the United
States and around the world. For 18 years he has used his show to become
the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today.
Everyday he gives voice to the values of democratic governance, individual
opportunity and the just, equal application of the rule of law -- and it is
fitting the Nobel Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a
truly peaceful world for future generations.
Thank you for your thoughtful and serious consideration of this
nomination. Should you require additional information, please don't
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,



Mark R. Levin
President

Which "Mark R. Levin" would that be? This one, former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese and currently a right-wing radio talk show host. Unfortunately for this dingus, the Nobel Peace Prize is by committee nomination only.

3 Comments:

Blogger curry king said...

I always wonder about the fine line facing left-wing bloggers in attacking the right-wing and simply giving them more publicity. Media Matters drools over Rush because it's such easy fodder for them. As a matter of fact, they structure their office by assigning every intern/staffer to one media source (so, if i worked at media matters, i'd be assigned to, e.g. sean hannity and would watch sean hannity all fucking day and write about it).

But ultimately, the left is giving these guys like Rush a stage for their baseless rhetoric. This is what they and their audience LOVE. It's one thing to counter the Kagan's, etc. but when you are getting into Coulter/Hannity/Rush territory, where should the line be drawn? Rather, should a line be drawn?

12:00 AM  
Blogger Josh said...

Doesn't Think Progress do some of the same?

3:37 PM  
Blogger Scantron said...

So, on the one hand, no one in their right mind, no one with even the slightest bit of sense and sensibility, no, in other words, "serious" person, would take Rush Limbaugh seriously, his and Mark Levin's claims to his indefatigable bonhommie notwithstanding. As an esteemed modern author once put it, "Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot," and even smart conservatives are willing to admit this (usually couched in the hedging language of "yes, but Ward Churchill is worse," or whatever, but they'll still admit it). So, in other words, taking Rush Limbaugh down sentence by sentence is sort of a useless and tedious task.

(By the way, are you talking strictly about the tactics of MediaMatters here, or are you including me as well? Because I'm not really attempting to do the same thing as Media Matters, or on as large a scale, obviously...)

Anyway, I still think it's useful to get out into the open the terrible things these people say, and not only that but just how closely they are tied to high-ranking members of the conservative movement. After all, Rush is usually the first place the Vice Prez stops by for an interview.

Also, I don't really buy the "they love having this platform for their insane views" thing. That's true to an extent, and it's true that you can make a martyr out of these people by attacking them, but I'm not really concerned about their crazy fans. The really hardcore followers will always be crazy and they're a sunk cost in my conception of the American political system. The point is to make sure their ranks don't swell. Now, the *good* that can come from pointing out Rush/Hannity/Coulters' logorrhea seems to me to be precisely this: If, for example, you can raise enough hell when they say something particularly nasty (e.g. Imus and the "nappy headed hos") and get them canned by their networks, then you've accomplished something. Furthermore, any gains they might temporarily make by having their hardcore constituents rant and rave about the "PC police" is small potatoes compared to the longer run accomplishment of making them look like big losers. Everybody loves a winner, and if the conservative movement can slowly be shown to be completely bankrupt then the focus in politics might shift in a progressive direction (not to say that conservatism will "die" as an idea [although ideas certainly die], but that "conservatism" will have to shift ground onto something more pragmatic and culturally acceptable). Now, that long bit by Rush is in my mind *way* more offensive than "nappy headed hos" could ever be, and there's plenty to get legitimately pissed about there. Perhaps with enough of an outcry it could get Rush canned on some radio stations. That would be great. Again, it's not because he would reach fewer people but because more people at the margin would associate him with a dying, offensive, or otherwise loser-like ideology. The more that can happen, the better. Note that I'm not saying that if a movement merely chants something enough it will become in all practical respects true--the point is actions based on real offenses, not just sloganeering.

6:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home