Conservatives Don't "Get" Racism...Except They Do

For those assuming conservatives are just closeted KKK members, Adam Serwer sets 'em straight:

What's clear, though, is that conservatives deploy racially tinged rhetoric against liberal policy priorities and Democratic politicians, and that Obama being president has a lot to do with these arguments being used. Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be comparing him to gang members if he weren't black. With Clinton, Limbaugh's sexism, rather than his racism, would be amplified. So while it might be unfair to suggest people are conservatives because they're racists, it's entirely fair to ask why conservatives are comfortable with their most prominent ideological figure's casual use of racism as a political bludgeon.

There's another option here that guys like Serwer miss, which is that conservatives like Limbaugh use the attack that is most likely to enrage liberals. That's why he mocks environmentalists with chainsaw sound effects or feminists with the shrewish voices of their leaders (not to mention calling them "babes" constantly). The "casual use of racism" is simply a way of taunting liberals to explain why their fealty to a black president regardless of his abandonment of their treasured beliefs isn't racism itself.

Republicans know they'll be called racists no matter how carefully they construct their criticisms of Teh One. That's why comparing the POTUS to spraycan-wielding graffiti artists is both subtle and effective. And, in the comments, Tom Maguire completely destroys the author's argument that the word "gang" is only used against darker-skinned politicians.

If liberals spent less time being offended and searching for "dog whistles" from commentators, they might discover that their slide to obscurity is directly related to their policy proposals, not racist/sexism/otherism by the voters.

When to Get One's Panties in a Bunch

Apparently, yesterday was the day for liberal outrage.

First, there was the bald racism of Rush Limbaugh, which, apparently, was also a "dog whistle." That's quite the feat, as Tom Maguire points out, since "bald" implies "open and obvious" and "dog whistle" implies "stealth." But who am I to judge? Only liberals seem to know what dog whistles look like anyway. I certainly didn't see one in Rush Limbaugh's insult of Barack Obama. It does prove my long-standing point that any criticism of Teh One must be racism.

Secondly, there's outrageous outrage of Sarah Palin's teenage daughter acting like a teenager, that is to say, inappropriately at times. I had a post, once upon a time, about adolescent speech and school discipline, and was told by someone that it wasn't a homosexual slur. My own opinion on the subject--that children should be taught not to say these things and why it may be offensive to some people--still stands. But having said that, Willow Palin using teenage vernacular (do the same outraged people feel insulted over the use of "bitch" and "slut," I wonder?) in no way reflects on Sarah Palin as a parent or role model (not that some people won't use this incident to attack Palin just as bad behavior by the Bush twins was, somehow, George W.'s fault).

They Have No Sense of Humor

Liberals often accuse conservatives of having no sense of humor, but judging from the reaction to many of the things Rush Limbaugh says tongue in cheek, I'd say the lack of humor is more of a lefty thing. Well, unless it's Jon Stewart telling Fox News to go f*ck themselves or something.

The latest tempest in a teapot is over Limbaugh's declaration that Volcanic eruption in Iceland is God’s reaction to health care’s passage.

You know, a couple of days after the health care bill had been signed into law Obama ran around all over the country saying, “Hey, you know, I’m looking around. The earth hadn’t opened up. There’s no Armageddon out there. The birds are still chirping.” I think the earth has opened up. God may have replied. This volcano in Iceland has grounded more airplanes — airspace has more affected — than even after 9/11 because of this plume, because of this ash cloud over Northern and Western Europe. At the Paris airport they’re telling people to head to the train station to catch trains out of France, and when people get to the train station they’re telling people, “There aren’t any seats until at least April 22nd,” basically a week from now. It’s got everybody in a shutdown. Earth has opened up. I don’t know whether it’s a rebirth or Armageddon. Hopefully it’s a rebirth, God speaking.

Normal people hearing or reading that, would recognize it as a joke. But the commenters at Think Progress obviously didn't think so.

Just when you think Rush couldn’t be more outrageous, he steps up to the plate and hits another home run.

Really? You think a joke about global warming after Teh One snarkily notes the earth didn't "open up" with the passage of Obamacare is outrageous? I can find more outrageous stuff on South Park.

Why don't these nuts save their outrage for something important, like the outing of a supposedly gay Supreme Court nominee?

Proving a Negative

Liberals are anxious to prove Rush Limbaugh is a racist to the point where they will use fake quotes to do it.

Limbaugh's bid to buy the St. Louis Rams is all but dead, but this shows you what a few enterprising jerks can do to someone when they try hard enough. We're left having to prove you didn't say something. Disgusting.

I Agree with Patterico

That neither Rush Limbaugh nor David Frum speak for me as a conservative.

I know that must come as a shock to guys like Mike G., who thinks anyone who supports conservative principles must genuflect at the Rush altar. But, believe it or not, I've disagreed with Rush about things and I've agreed with him on others. And David Frum is the same way.

I've actually agreed with Frum that conservatism needs a makeover, complete with new ideas and ways of approaching voters, such as Latinos, who have lots of values in common with us but who see the GOP as anti-Hispanic. But when Frum lobs childish sneers at Rush and downplays the seriousness of Bill Clinton's impeachment, then I have to declare that he doesn't speak for me.

Patterico notes that Frum's Newsweek piece says,

With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party.

Limbaugh's personal life and problems are not the issue. No party that supported Mr. Blow Jobs in the Oval Office and Mr. "I used a little blow" has room to complain about another man being fat, divorced, or having drug addiction problems. But when supposed conservatives elevate these ridiculous taunts to the same level as policy debates, it gives a legitimacy to those sneers that they don't deserve.

What liberals hate about Rush Limbaugh isn't that he's fat, had multiple divorces, or was addicted to Oxycontin. What they hate about Limbaugh is that he is effective. This is why when a conservative makes an argument that Limbaugh has made, that person is called a "dittohead" (as a perjorative), whether that person actually heard Limbaugh say the same thing or not. I listen to Rush on a regular basis, but I also listen to lots of other shows, many of which disagree with Limbaugh on a variety of issues. None of them speaks for me 100%.

But it's hard to back any of Frum's argument when he calls Bill Clinton's impeachment an event that makes him feel "silly" for supporting it. What is silly about supporting impeachment for a man who lied under oath, obstructed justice, abused his power and tried to punish those with whom he disagreed? For the liberals who argue that George W. Bush deserved impeachment, one can at least counter that his behavior was driven by national security. Clinton's were driven by his own ego and libido.

When Rush Limbaugh makes points with which I agree, I can say so. And the same goes for David Frum. But the Democrat tactic of elevating Limbaugh to GOP spokesman offends more than just uninformed moderates and independents. It offends me, as well.

Obama Takes Swipe at Rush Limbaugh

Like Bill Clinton before him, Barack Obama makes the mistake of taking a swipe at Rush Limbaugh.

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

Obama also threw punches at Sean Hannity during the campaign (quotes that have become part of Hannity's opening), but such snipes, which might be understandable from a candidate, look downright churlish from the POTUS.

But maybe Teh One should be worried.

The timing was no coincidence: after a rocky first week in office, the Obamists are also faced with a resurgent Fox News Channel, where ratings have been climbing since the moment he took office.

In particular, Hannity's Limbaugh interview, which took place in the latter's Florida studios, scored fantastic audience figures for the former's network. In overall viewers, Thursday's Hannity nearly trebled his MSNBC competition and almost doubled CNN's Larry King.

And after a wildly successful fall ratings survey, talk radio is looking forward to record numbers with the installation of the Obamists.

It's natural that the nearly half of the country who didn't vote for Obama are going to look for sources critical of Teh One, particularly when you have supposed journalists giddy to be calling him "Mr. President."

And Obama sniping at Rush Limbaugh and declaring that "he won" (therefore, you should do what he says) isn't likely to make conservatives more conciliatory. If Obama wants opposition, I can't think of any better way than to lower himself to the level of talk show hosts or to rub salt in the wounds of the minority party.

Still, this worries some, who see Obama reinstituting the unFairness Doctrine to silence critics. Personally, I think that would reenergize conservatives in a way much to the Obamessiah's disliking.

UPDATE: Limbaugh responds.

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama and Negative Rights

This will probably knock Mike G for a loop, but Rush Limbaugh was completely wrong today during his harangue on Obama's discussion of negative rights.

There was plenty wrong with Obama's take on redistributive justice, but saying the Constitution is a document of negative rights is not one of them.

There are different ways of looking at the Constitution, but there's nothing radical in the thought that it is mainly concerned with what the government cannot do. If you look at the Bill of Rights, for example, virtually every right named is phrased as what the government cannot do:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Perhaps Obama's argument was more suited to a law school classroom, but it's obvious that Rush didn't understand that describing these constraints on government actions as "negative rights" was not some sort of liberal conspiracy. The Founding Fathers understood that a government of limited powers would only stay that way if the Constitution outlined exactly what the government was allowed to do...and no more.

Nothing Like a Day for Rush to Drive the Nutroots Crazy

I missed Rush Limbaugh's 20th anniversary show yesterday, but it's nice to know that he can still drive the nutroots batshit crazy.

The Bush dynasty called into Rush's show yesterday to congratulate Rush on 20 years of talk radio, and we just can't have that, now, can we?

I will never get over the fact that this raging, racist, sexist, hypocritical, asshole is considered so mainstream that he is even broadcast to the troops overseas and hosts the Bush family, but the congress of the United State voted to condemn MoveOn for taking out an ad in the NY Times. It still makes me mad.

More accurate Digby: *whine whine whine* We don't have a Rush Limbaugh on our side! *sniff* *stamps petite foot*

There Is Real Evil in the World

I was listening to a radio show on the way home from work last night and the host and guest were talking about the latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight. The host pointed out that some movies are generally conservative (Braveheart, Gladiator) while others are unabashedly liberal (In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, Rendition, and Syriana).

One of the things that came out was that in conservative movies, we don't care why someone is a bad guy (the guest was arguing that he wanted to know what made the Joker into the Joker). We simply understand that evil is evil and there aren't excuses for that. Whereas, in liberal movies, we have to come to understand the bad guy and even sympathize with him, understanding his motivations (unless the bad guy is a conservative, then the motivations are obvious: he's just evil).

This discussion made me think about the shooting at the Knoxville Unitarian Church Sunday. There are plenty of people wanting to plaster the blame onto others besides the gunman.

You killed them, Pat Robertson. You killed them, Pastor Hagee. You killed them, Ann Coulter. You killed them, Dick Morris and Sean Hannity and the rest of you at Fox News.

Yet, in the end, it wasn't Ann Coulter who killed those people in a church. It wasn't Pat Robertson. It wasn't Sean Hannity or Michael Savage, regardless of how you feel about their rhetoric or politics. Millions and millions of people listen to, watch, and read these people on a daily basis and yet do not succumb to violent tendencies. So, why blame those pundits when violence erupts?

The fact is, there is real evil in the world. It walks into churches and shoots unarmed and innocent people. It attacks people who disagree with it. It tries to shame people into silence by attaching evil to good.

I'm willing to say that what the man in Knoxville did was evil. But trying to attach blame to the authors of books he read is just stupid. Did he own a dictionary, as well?

Hysteria from the Left: Rush Limbaugh Incites Violence!

I felt obliged to continue the "H" theme in headlines, so forgive my indulgence.

There are people who like to accuse anyone who disagrees with their dogma of drinking to excess, but that question sounds reasonable after reading Jeffrey Feldman's idiotic and paranoid screed about Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos.

For weeks, now, Rush Limbaugh has been trying to incite political violence by giving on-air military-sounding orders, effectively 'commanding' his listeners to wage war against the U.S. electoral system.

The right-wing pundit's 'orders' to his Republican listeners have been clear: vote in the Democratic primaries as a coordinated tactic for sewing division in the opposition party. The goal of such 'chaos,' Limbaugh has stated explicitly, is to foment hatred between different parts of the Democratic Party leading, ultimately, to street riots during the Denver convention.

The ongoing incident raises a serious question:

How does Limbaugh's bid to incite political violence with radio broadcasts differ from previous instances where radio has been used to that end (e.g., Rwanda)? (Emphasis his)

Most Americans would agree that using radio to incite political violence is not only wrong, but the attempt itself represents a massive failure in our democracy. How Limbaugh's broadcasts differ from, say, radio broadcasts that incited violence in Rwanda and Kenya, for example, can help us to understand exactly what Limbaugh was doing and the exact danger it poses.

Yes, the zombies have been commanded by their fearless leader to incite violence. This is the sort of idiocy one gets from people who never listen to Limbaugh's show and are so--dare I say it?--elitist as to think Republicans are the sorts of thugs Democrats have repeatedly revealed themselves to be (think 1968 Democratic National Convention).

Indeed, what has the MSM and lefty bloggers tied in knots is that they can't stop people from voting when, where, and how they want. There was plenty of talk during the election season of 2000 about Democrats crossing party lines and voting in the Republican primary.

What Feldman can't understand is that many Republicans were already crossing party lines before Limbaugh launched Operation Chaos. More to the point, there is no Limbaugh army, nor can he cause or create rioting at the Democrat National Convention. It is Democrats who will be doing the fighting if there is any. And that will be--dare I say this, too?--their choice to do so.

Unlike the left, conservatives don't riot and don't resort to violence to settle electoral differences. Any sane person listening to Limbaugh would know that the violence he's discussed isn't from conservatives. It's that liberals will eat their own.

Why Does Anyone Watch Bill Maher Anymore?

I may disagree with Rush Limbaugh from time to time, but only leftists seem to think wishing death on your political enemies is good comedy.

Here's the transcript:

BILL MAHER, HOST: Why is it, I was asking Amy this, why is it that the Republican establishment, I guess it is, have so much disdain, not just for McCain, but for the other guy who's still in it...Huckabee? They don't like either one of them.

P.J. O'ROURKE, WRITER: Well, I think a couple of things are going on. It's the it's the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy…

MAHER: …You mean Rush Limbaugh and Sean..?

O'ROURKE: …from the moment the fat guy refused to share his drugs (audience laughter). I was, you know…he never called, he never wrote. I'm ready to party, you know, come on! No, I think it's kind of over for those people. So…

MAHER: Right, you mean the OxyContin that he was on?

O'ROURKE: Yeah, exactly. I mean, that stuff's good!

MAHER: Why couldn't, uh, why couldn't have he croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger? (small audience groans)

O'ROURKE: Yeah, yeah.

I've enjoyed P.J. O'Rourke's writing, but why he would sink to the Bill Maher level is beyond me. After all, Bill Maher has a habit of wishing death on his political enemies. Worse, he's not even funny about it. Isn't "he's a comedian" one of the excuses liberals always give for why it's acceptable when Bill Maher or Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert says something outrageous?

The fact is, wishig for the death of people you disagree with is beyond stupid or childish. It's disgusting. Why does anyone even watch this guy anymore?

What the Armed Forces Radio Network Schedules

Certain moonbats are apoplectic that Rush Limbaugh is on the Armed Forces Radio Network. But it doesn't take a genius to Google for the schedule and discover--holy cow!--AFRN schedules liberals as well! Including Ed Schultz, who wouldn't have a show if he didn't hate Rush Limbaugh.

In point of fact, there are more liberals on AFRN than conservatives. AFRN plays Ed Schultz, Alan Colmes, and Jim Hightower (I thought he was dead). The only political conservative shows on AFRN are Rush and Sean Hannity. And if you add in news broadcasts (AFRN broadcasts NPR 24/7 it seems like), the left-leaning viewpoints get more than enough airplay.

Or maybe what the nutroots are saying is that 54 minutes of Rush equals 3 hours of liberal shows.

Don't Mistake the Liberal Agenda: Silencing Conservatives

If it wasn't obvious before, liberals hate free speech. Why do I say that? It's the only explanation for why liberals are hellbent on getting Rush Limbaugh off the Armed Forces Radio Network. One of the chief unhinged nuts explains the importance of silencing Rush Limbaugh:

It’s my belief that the conservative movement of the past decade or so was a three headed hydra: Newt, Delay and Rush. Sure, there are others, including Bush’s brain, and Grover Norquist (whom I have sometimes included as the fourth head of the hydra) but those three stood for different things that were hugely important to the success of the movement. Newt was the visionary. Delay was the congressional enforcer. And Rush was the voice, screaming out violent hatred for liberals and Democrats day after day, decade after decade. It took its toll, to the point where we can hardly even stand ourselves.

Newtie’s now irrelevant. Delay is gone. Only Rush remains and he is probably the biggest prize. On a purely practical, hardball political basis, the Democrats should have been working to take him out for years. Now is their chance to turn the Republicans’ patented hissy kabuki back on them and hoist an avowed political enemy with his own poisonous petard at the same time. There are many others who will happily take his place, no doubt about it. But his voice is uniquely associated with the radical wingnuts, and it is an important symbolic message to the country if they can finally make an example of him. (Emphasis mine)

What sort of example? Why, an example of what happens when you cross the liberal cabal. The nutroots accuse a four-star general of betraying our country and these jerks back up a full-page, discounted ad. And when that backfires, they have to raise a stink about a phony flap like the Rush Limbaugh quote to try to take the heat off themselves.

If I didn't know how those supposedly open-minded moonbats think, it might sound a bit hypocritical. But knowing how little respect liberals have for free speech, it's no surprise at all. That's why they constantly cry for banning people they disagree with. Instead of finding a formula that attracts viewers, they call for greater restrictions on speech.

And who can blame them? It's no mystery that conservatives thrive when free ideas are expressed. Liberals, on the other hand, constantly and persistently side with silencing speech they dislike.

Liberalism once had a reputation of supporting the free and open exchange of ideas. But for the last 40 years, liberals have constantly complained that all conflicting ideas must be suppressed, whether those ideas concern religion, speech, protest, education or virtually any other issue.

Rush Limbaugh's success and his huge audience is more than a thorn in the side of the liberal elites. They have to discredit Rush any way they can because their own ideas have been rejected by huge segments of America. It's the same reason the moonbatosphere is hysterical over Fox News when the network audience share dwarfs the only conservative network on the air. They can't win with their ideas, so they must try to silence all opponents.

Rush compares the Wesley Clarks, the nutroots, the Media Matters of the left to Stalinists, and the comparison is apt.

Rush Limbaugh and Phony Soldiers

Rush Limbaugh shows an anatomy of a smear over his "phony soldier" comment.

The Weekly Standard has this post on the situation.

My advice to anyone reading Media Matters is to remember that they are a P.R. outlet for liberals. They will lie or misquote conservatives, then disseminate their propaganda through blogs and any media sources who will listen.

As Limbaugh points out he was never contacted by Media Matters, any journalists or any of the politicians denouncing him to ask if he was calling anti-war soldiers "phony soldiers." It's far more telling when these henchmen won't call than when they do.

Do They Want People to Die?

The all-Democrat board of the Broward County Commission wants to politicize hurricane information. How? They don't want to broadcast the hurricane information on a station that also runs the Rush Limbaugh show.

Radio station WIOD, AM 610, has been the official channel for emergency information from Broward County government for the past year. The County Commission, all Democrats, balked at renewing the deal Tuesday, unable to stomach the station also being home to Limbaugh's talk show.

Commissioner Stacy Ritter said she did not want to support a station that's out of step with area politics. Ritter, a Democratic stalwart in the state Legislature before being elected to county office, cited talk shows hosted by Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and WIOD's partnership with Fox News...

The deal with WIOD would ensure that news conferences are broadcast start to finish live from the county Emergency Operations Center in Plantation. Emergency managers became concerned during hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 that radio and television stations preempted their announcements in favor of news out of Miami.

According to Newsbusters, WIOD was chosen "because of its signal strength, numerous FM sister stations and willingness to give Broward top play." Obviously, logic doesn't play into the considerations of local Democrats, it seems.