Friday, Rush Limbaugh wrote and Op ED for the Wall Street Journal: (See his article below. )
As I was reading it I started to write little comments to everything that I found to be inaccurate, simple opinion or hypocritical. But I soon came to realize I was commenting on almost every statement he made. So I stood back and rethought how to best address this article. I quick noticed three themes that run throughout this article. Rather than attack each line, lets take a broader look at the Rush Limbaugh message.
Theme 1: It’s all about Rush. I found this to be a very insight view into the Rush mind set. Rush is not a politician or an otherwise elected or appointed official. He is an entertainer. He has a Talk Radio Show that appeals to the far most right leaning aspects of the Republican Party. As a syndicated broadcast, Rush is obligated to secure ratings in order to bring in advertising dollars. Rush is not looking for compromise. That would be bad for business. Rush needs to keep the fire raging. The more controversial he is, the higher his numbers are. The higher his numbers are, the more advertising money he brings in. And that’s all good. But don’t just blindly trust that Rush is some sort of spokesmen for the Republicans. He has already flat-out turned that job down. He doesn't want that position. I think he demonstrates that quite well in this article. He also took a few occasions to let us know what a great contributor he is to worthwhile charities. When you are out blowing your own horn for the charity work you have done,. I tend to think that the horn blowing was the only reason you were out there.
Theme 2: Hateful Words. When you have a point to make, there are several ways you can tell your story to convey the idea. In this article, just as on his show, Rush make a number of general statements and sprinkles them with inflammatory language that can only be interpreted as hostile. “Most” Lefties” are.,… Most? I don’t think most are Angry. I believe that most of the anger we are seeing is being generated from the Right. And the term “LEFTIES” What does that mean? Because my political party sits on the left side of the congressional chamber, that somehow translate that I am not or less of an American than Rush or the others who site on the right side of the chambers? The way Rush delivers this term"lefty" it's almost as if it were a disease. How about “RADICAL” Agenda. We must agree that The Right & the Left are in opposition for most topics, but does that mean that if my party wins the Whitehouse, the policies we implement are “RADICAL”? And lets not leave out “REGIME”.
If we think these terms over, there are several, professional, descriptive and appropriate terms we could inserted so as not to inflame. Rush is a professional speaker, it would be unrealistic to suggest he has not chosen his words very carefully. Especially if he is writing for the WSJ.
Theme 3:” I know your soul.” In this article, Rush spends a great deal of time telling his readers how I , a lefty, thinks. He says, I hate my government we the Dems are not in power. He says I treat my allies like enemies and my enemies as allies. He suggests that the Democrats employ “draconian” methods of regulation. He states that those who has spoke out against him, are the same people who “Condemn” this society.
There are the three Themes worth discussing. I have intentionally left out the hypocrisy theme because , as you read the article, you will see it in all its glory as it is perforated throughout this article, or you will not. For those who will not see it, I would never be able to convince you otherwise and will save that energy for more worthwhile discussions.
As your read his article, think of the themes I have mentions. Each time you see a general opinion, remember that is just what it is. While you have the right to an opinion, unless your are trying to insight your readers, why would you feel the need to lace it with so much hostility. Each time, he tells the reader what a liberal or lefty is thinking or how we think, or what we are planning. Just remember,.. he is making that part up. Rush is not included on the DNC strategy meetings, nothing he states here reflects any ideas, plans or sentiment that I carry. Since this is just "made-up"information, I can draw only two conclusions: Ignorance or misguidance. I don't agree with anything I have ever heard Rush say, but I would not call him stupid, and I cant believe someone could maintain a position such as his buy remaining ignorant of the issues you discuss ona national show. But ,. I am not going to tell you what he was thinking.
Now to the opening and closing of Rushes article. He stated that he has been falsely accused of sedition.
Sedition:
1. Speech or behavior directed against the peace of a state
2. An offence that tends to undermine the authority of a state
3. An incitement to public disorder
4. Revolt
While I will not accuse him of a clear act of sedition, based on the definitions listed above, one could see how such a claim could be made. When you fabricate a story to fit your political view, and you fill it with words that inflame, and you accuse the government of Radical policies, and and nationalizing institutions, where is your obligation or responsibility to your listeners? If a true believer of the RUSH doctrine were to take matters into their own hands, how much of that action should fall on Rush? While Rush did not make any "Call to Arms" here, or on his show, he has chosen to use language that is clearly divisive. He has uses a platform of Opinion Editorials or his own show to misrepresent the facts as well as opposing views. With over 3 million daily listeners, what responsibility is Rush burdened with?
And just for the record, compared to Beck,... I love this guy.
Liberals and the Violence Card
Conservative protest is motivated by a love of what America stands for.
By Rush Limbaugh / Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703876404575199743566950622.html#printMode
The latest liberal meme is to equate skepticism of the Obama administration with a tendency toward violence. That takes me back 15 years ago to the time President Bill Clinton accused "loud and angry voices" on the airwaves (i.e., radio talk-show hosts like me) of having incited Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. What self-serving nonsense. Liberals are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they're not in power.
From the halls of the Ivy League to the halls of Congress, from the antiwar protests during the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq to the anti-capitalist protests during International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, we're used to seeing leftist malcontents take to the streets. Sometimes they're violent, breaking shop windows with bricks and throwing rocks at police. Sometimes there are arrests. Not all leftists are violent, of course. But most are angry. It's in their DNA. They view the culture as corrupt and capitalism as unjust.
Now the liberals run the government and they're using their power to implement their radical agenda. Mr. Obama and his party believe that the election of November 2008 entitled them to make permanent, "transformational" changes to our society. In just 16 months they've added more than $2 trillion to the national debt, essentially nationalized the health-care system, the student-loan industry, and have their sights set on draconian cap-and-trade regulations on carbon emissions and amnesty for illegal aliens. Had President Obama campaigned on this agenda, he wouldn't have garnered 30% of the popular vote.
Like the millions of citizens who've peacefully risen up and attended thousands of rallies in protest, I seek nothing more than the preservation of the social contract that undergirds our society. I do not hate the government, as the left does when it is not running it. I love this country. And because I do, I insist that the temporary inhabitants of high political office comply with the Constitution, honor our God-given unalienable rights, and respect our hard-earned private property. For this I am called seditious, among other things, by some of the very people who've condemned this society?
I reject the notion that America is in a well-deserved decline, that she and her citizens are unexceptional. I do not believe America is the problem in the world. I believe America is the solution to the world's problems. I reject a foreign policy that treats our allies like our enemies and our enemies like our allies. I condemn the president traveling the world apologizing for America's great contributions to mankind. And I condemn his soft-pedaling the dangers we face from terrorism. For this I am inciting violence?
Few presidents have sunk so low as Mr. Clinton did with his accusations about Oklahoma City. Last week—on the very day I was contributing to and raising more than $3 million to fight leukemia and lymphoma on my radio program—Mr. Clinton used the 15th anniversary of that horrific day to regurgitate his claims about talk radio. At a speech delivered last Friday at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., the former president said: [T]here were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our domestic economic problem was the federal government itself. And we have to realize that there were others who fueled this both because they agreed with it and because it was in their advantage to do so. . . . We didn't have blog sites back then so the instrument of carrying this forward was basically the right-wing radio talk show hosts and they understand clearly that emotion was more powerful than reason most of the time.
Timothy McVeigh was incensed by the Clinton administration's 1993 siege on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. It's no coincidence that the bombing took place two years to the day of the Waco siege. McVeigh was not inspired by anything I said or believe and to say otherwise is outright slander. In the aftermath of the bombing, I raised millions of dollars for the children of federal employees killed in that cowardly attack through my association with the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation.
Let me just say it. The Obama/Clinton/media left are comfortable with the unrest in our society today. It allows them to blame and demonize their opponents (doctors, insurance companies, Wall Street, talk radio, Fox News) in order to portray their regime as the great healer of all our ills, thus expanding their power and control over our society.
A clear majority of the American people want no part of this. They instinctively know that the Obama way is not how things get done in this country. They are motivated by love. Not hate, not sedition. They love their country and want to save it from those who do not.
END:
No comments:
Post a Comment