It’s okay to disagree with Rush Limbaugh
I make a living disagreeing with people who are far more successful, famous, wealthy and important than I am. I have spent thousands of hours on television and thousands of column inches criticizing the President of the United States. If you think I’m going to apologize for suggesting that it might be okay to disagree with a radio host sometimes, you don’t know me at all.
But I guess I’m not surprised at the rancor. For one, part of the point I was trying to make was that the impulse to defend anything and everything that a party heavyweight says — to the death — has the deleterious effect of making conservatives seem irrational and herd-like. No one is right all the time, and no one is above reproach. Limbaugh, who has frequently criticized Republicans, knows this better than anyone…
The other point that the reaction to my Rush comments proves is that conservatives continue to view criticism (even the constructive kind) through a lens of ideological suspicion. Even though I defended conservative principles as right, strong and popular, and explicitly said this isn’t about casting strident conservatives out of the party but reworking our messaging, Rush’s fans still decided that my conservatism was discredited. Disagreeing with him, or merely offering that we should feel comfortable disagreeing with party leaders now and then, suddenly made me an untrustworthy, sell-out liberal…
It’s not my desire to silence anyone, but amplify other voices, many of whom don’t feel like they have permission to disagree with party heavyweights. We don’t need permission, and in fact conservatism has a hallowed tradition of healthy skepticism toward authority. It’s that skepticism toward authority that has made Rush Limbaugh a very successful man.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
How was he wrong about Romney? Rush has a strict personal policy of never endorsing candidates during primaries. That’s been one of my biggest beefs with him, truth be told. I wish he’d be MORE active in peddling primary candidates, but I understand he can’t without running the risk of alienating a large swath of his listenership. (e.g. Rush said in an interview, given his druthers, Steve Forbes would have won the presidential nomination in 2000)
gryphon202 on February 19, 2013 at 4:13 PM
You are arguing in favor of her strawman. Which is easy to do. That’s why she set the strawman up.
And I think Rush is someone who understands how this PR game works, so he knows he screwed up in what he said if for no other reason than what he said became the issue, rather than Fluke’s life of Julia.
besser tot als rot on February 19, 2013 at 4:14 PM
I agree – he didn’t change his mind.
22044 on February 19, 2013 at 4:14 PM
I won’t have lies be spread about me on this.
I have never so much as mentioned Palin’s children apart from defending them against David Letterman. Don’t even insinuate that I disparaged them.
I have never insinuated anything untoward with regard to Palin’s personal sex life or her morality. Neither have I done so for O’Donnell or Angle.
I have certainly criticized all three. I won’t disavow that, and I won’t apologize for it. O’Donnell told provable stupid lies and stole money from her contributors. Angle lost a race she should have won because she didn’t think before she spoke – precisely the same criticism I lodged against Akin.
As for Palin, my views on her have always been expressed in the realm of her political ability. Never her character and never her gender.
KingGold on February 19, 2013 at 4:14 PM
By clinging to the fantasy that Romney really had a chance. I know these public spokesmen had to be “good soldiers” and all, though.
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 4:15 PM
I try to only disagree with people when they’re wrong. And that applies whether my pwecious widdle feelings are hurt or not.
Sgt Steve on February 19, 2013 at 4:17 PM
I said “your ilk”. I don’t think you’ve exactly popped the veins in your forehead in defending them as valorously as you defend that paragon of feminine virtue and loveliness, Ms Fluke.
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 4:18 PM
No, Rush isn’t immune to criticism, and nobody should be afraid to call him out if he says something disagreeable. He’s also free to opine just about as he sees fit, and if people don’t like it they don’t have to listen. People like S.E. also shouldn’t buy into liberal narratives and pile on when the Left cries about what is said, either. It’s not like anything he’s said hasn’t been replicated many times over on the same channel she appears on, after all.
changer1701 on February 19, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Oh, give me a f***ing break, by the way. Criticism of Palin always comes down to personal attack and ridicule. Her “political ability” has been shown to be at least as good as those in the Untouchable Squish Pantheon.
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Just bear in mind, there is historical precedent for the guy Rush hoping seals the nomination (cf. Forbes in 2000) not making the cut. Sometimes Rush frustrates the crap out of me, but I know enough about the talk radio industry to be somewhat sympathetic to where he comes from in his refusal to wade into the cesspool of political primaries.
gryphon202 on February 19, 2013 at 4:21 PM
And let me add one thing, for you people putting words in my mouth about O’Donnell.
I supported her candidacy from precisely the time she was nominated to precisely the time she lost. Because I was big enough to put my differences with her aside for the good of all. I even sent her $25 the day after she won the primary.
During the race, you’ll recall that someone from Gawker (maybe?) penned a disgusting piece about an encounter with O’Donnell. One I railed against along with all decent people. So don’t accuse me of cherry-picking when it comes to maintaining a minimum level of decorum when talking to and about women.
I don’t know where some of you are from. But where I’m from, men treat women with respect. They don’t make baseless insinuations about their promiscuity.
KingGold on February 19, 2013 at 4:21 PM
Is that why the “she needs a thicker skin” meme worked so well for you? Well how about this, Butch:
Sandra Fluke needs a thicker skin, and so does Sarah Beth!
And yeah, I think Fluke is a whore. And so are all 535 of our elected representatives in congress.
gryphon202 on February 19, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Now THAT is funny…
CycloneCDB on February 19, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Unless that person is Sarah Palin. Then you shouldn’t expect KingGold to come to her rescue.
gryphon202 on February 19, 2013 at 4:23 PM
I’ve personally known people who have told me that, although they didn’t use those words exactly. It’s more along the lines of “Why should I criticize him? Do libtards do the same with their own?”
Does that answer your question?
NorthernCross on February 19, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Well, come to think of it I don’t recall many libs criticizing Jon Stewart, much less expecting the Blessings of the Martyred for doing so.
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 4:27 PM
Which part was baseless? If one is fornicating so routinely that they require government assistance to purchase the requisite birth control, does that not indicate that they are more promiscuous than the average woman? I.e. a “slut”?
It sounds like she/they/you just don’t like the fact that she is a slut. That she was called a slut is like the night getting bent out of shape for being called “dark”.
CycloneCDB on February 19, 2013 at 4:28 PM
And just what the hell do you expect me to do? Stay on the lookout every day? I’m only one man, and I’m not plugged in to the latest news.
A few years ago, Palin was the target of some real or imagined criticism every three days or so. Krauthammer, unnamed Romney aides, Bachmann’s people, Santorum’s people, this media outlet, that media outlet, and so on and so on. I can’t possibly be expected to defend her every single time.
What’s more, many of those slights were not attacks on her character or morals. They were assertions that Palin had limited organizational or political ability – matters of opinion. But to Palinistas that’s a high crime and blasphemy. I won’t deal with that.
I was well aware of things during the 2008 election. I had no trouble mustering outrage at the picayune news media and their exploitation of every blot and blemish in Palin’s career. But that time is long over.
KingGold on February 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM
But for some God-unknown reason, the liberals seem to view Rush as far more of a threat than the conservatives view Stewart. Could that simply be because Rush speaks from the heart and Stewart is a braying libwit jackass?
gryphon202 on February 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM
Mark Levin said it’s not that she criticized Rush’s position, but that she did it for use by the NYT. I have to agree with that. Do not feed the liberal media.
Otherwise, I enjoy S.E.’s views.
petefrt on February 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Of course not.
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM
I must have missed that memo. Can you pull up any comments here — even one — defending Sarah Palin against slanderous remarks? I have a feeling that for every one you manage to find, I can find three of yours giving various-and-sundry reasons she’s supposedly unfit for the presidency.
Honestly, that’s my biggest fear when I look at Dr. Ben Carson. I think we’re in store for Sarah Palin Redux in 2016, and it’s so unnecessary.
gryphon202 on February 19, 2013 at 4:33 PM
Right, which is why what I said isn’t a strawman at all. It’s also why, I believe, a large proportion of the American public doesn’t trust the GOP to ever have much integrity. Of course, the same could be said about how a lot of Americans feel about the Democrats.
NorthernCross on February 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM
S.E. Cupp: “…referring to my show on the left-leaning network.”
I like and enjoy S.E. but reading that she thinks that MSNBC is only “left leaning” gives me pause.
RJL on February 19, 2013 at 4:35 PM
Well, it is. Pointing out that libs don’t try to get brownie points by criticizing Stewart doesn’t mean that Limbaugh is immune to criticism.
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 4:35 PM
No, I can’t give you any comments. I did not register for the site until the first open registration after the election.
The only evidence I can offer is that at CPAC 2009 I had the pleasure of being at the Media Malpractice premiere at the National Press Club, during which I had wonderful conversations with both Tito “the Builder” Munoz and John Ziegler, who like me grew disaffected with Palin’s political and organizational style despite being an early supporter of hers, also as I was.
You can, if you wish, choose not to believe that story. And that’s fine; I’m not seeking validation.
KingGold on February 19, 2013 at 4:38 PM
I think you misunderstand. I’m not saying that you’re like that, although I acknowledge that you understand the premise. Fact is, there are people out there who refuse to criticize people like Rush because they believe that there are people on the other side who act that way towards their own ideological heroes.
But, to be fair, this is not something unique to Republicans.
NorthernCross on February 19, 2013 at 4:41 PM
Oh, come on. Ziegler was creepily obsessed with Palin and he acted as if she was going to be his puppet on a string. How much “political and organizational style” does Rubio have? I’ve become disenchanted with it.
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 4:42 PM
Whether on criticizes Rush or not is beside the point. The straw man lies in this idea that it is unforgivable APOSTASY to say something critical of Limbaugh. As I said, S. E. Cupp is merely building up “cool cred” by going after very easy strawmen. She knows there’s no “penalty” for going after Rush. Quite the opposite.
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 4:44 PM
I might also hasten to add that maybe you PDSers could have been a little more “disaffected” by that vaunted Romney political and organizational skill that wasn’t really there.
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 4:47 PM
Well, for one thing, when the media decided to wet itself over Rubio’s water-drinking, he was not confrontational about it. He put himself out there on the news shows, had fun with himself over it, and managed to steal all the thunder away from Obama’s liberal wishlist known as the State of the Union.
Whereas Palin, in similar situations (such as the Thanksgiving turkey slaughter), stuck by friendly outlets like Greta van Susteren and Sean Hannity, accused the media of bias and double standard, and retrenched her strongest supporters instead of taking a risk to earn more support.
As a result, her supporters are the most vociferous, strident, and loyal conservatives you’ll ever find (and I do mean that partly as a compliment) but they’re nowhere near as numerous as to be an actual political force any more.
KingGold on February 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Out of curiosity, do commenters here consider it “unforgivable APOSTASY” ever to condemn Rush or call him out? (And yes, I’m not talking about mere criticism.)
NorthernCross on February 19, 2013 at 4:50 PM
No, he came out with the dorky Rubio water-bottle, which has sold about as many copies as his book.
Palin didn’t really say anything about the turkey, as I recall. Loads of PDSers did, though.
See, here’s the difference. WHATEVER response Rubio had to the water thing would have been hailed is “genius”. If it had been Palin who took that awkward sip, NOTHING could have redeemed her. Nothing. And you know it.
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 4:53 PM
As I said.
Vociferous, strident, loyal.
KingGold on February 19, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Sorry S.E. you didn’t just “disagree” with him. You called him “dangerous” and you went into a liberal forum and played to their paranoia about Rush.
When will our side learn. You don’t see Bill Maher going to National Review and saying that Hilary Clinton is dangerous. And yet, the twits on our side think this is perfectly acceptable.
It is perfectly fine to disagree, but to give ammunition to the other side is traitorous.
melle1228 on February 19, 2013 at 4:58 PM
By the way, did you ever criticize Romney for similarly camping out at Fox News? And if Rubio talks about media double standards, it’s “Yeah Marco!!!! You go!!!! Fight those media bastards!!!!!”
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM
And to quote Limbaugh:
ddrintn on February 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM
It’s funny, almost three decades ago, when Rush put out commercials hyping his TV show, the commercials promoted him as “the most dangerous man in America.” It’s almost as if Cupp is buying in to Rush’s own sales pitch.
NorthernCross on February 19, 2013 at 5:06 PM
Haha, 3 pages on a headline thread.
Proof again that it’s NOT ok to question Rush. Understandable though when a majority or True Conservatives(TM) learned their political opinions at his knee, unquestioningly.
In between having ads chucked at them and checks cashed.
Genuine on February 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM
Except of course just about everyone here has said they don’t agree with Limbaugh either with his original statement or his apology.
Typical leftist moron who can’t read.
sharrukin on February 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM
I have to admit that it was my efforts to prove Rush wrong that made me the political wonk I am today, and I now use his site for the links he provides to 0bamaGanda propaganda stories.
Yep! I’ve learned a lot thanks to Rush. You could too.
DannoJyd on February 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Whatever it is you’re looking for here, I doubt you’ll find it. For all you seem to enjoy pointing out you were an “early Palin supporter,” I can not find any evidence of that outside of the numerous times you criticized her while calling yourself an “early Palin supporter.” Oh well.
gryphon202 on February 19, 2013 at 5:16 PM
Not if you do it in the proper forum. Like to his face on his show. You do not go to some liberal cesspool and feed their paranoia. And you certainly don’t call him names and make general statements for publicity. She didn’t even have a frickin disagreement with him. She was just spouting off in general.
melle1228 on February 19, 2013 at 5:22 PM
One thing I have noticed is that a lot of the people who get upset when someone disagrees with a guy like Rush have no problem disagreeing with anyone they want to disagree with. It seems to me that there are people in the conservative movement who seem to think they have the right to tell everyone else what to do and say and think and feel. It is annoying and frustrating…not to mention constraining. I thought conservatives believed in people speaking their minds and being individuals…maybe that is changing.
Terrye on February 19, 2013 at 5:29 PM
I see no need to condemn Rush or call him out. His statement concerning Sandra Fluke were not defamatory by any stretch of the legal definition, he has never run afoul of the FCC for speaking any of George Carlin’s “seven dirty words,” and as goes mere criticism, I rarely disagree with his opinions though I do disagree every once in a while on some salient-but-minor point.
What bugs me the most about this is that the libwit hypocrites, along with some that call themselves “conservative,” have more problem with what Rush said about Fluke than the clearly defamatory statements made against Sarah Palin and other conservative women. Having been the target of such defamatory statements in the past, I would thing S.E. Cupp would be a little more astute than to let herself get drawn into such a rhetorical trap as she did.
gryphon202 on February 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM
Except you brought your little story up all by yourself, so you were seeking something.
RickB on February 19, 2013 at 5:31 PM
One thing I noticed is that there are a lot of people on Hot air who have comprehension problems– Meh!
melle1228 on February 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM
I don’t think that is really the point. It is possible to listen to Rush and even agree with him often and still criticize him. It seems some of his fans just can not tolerate that.
Terrye on February 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM
You can say what you think and others can say what they think of your thoughts and opinions.
What you don’t get to do is attack someone and have everyone remain silent because that particular target is on the designated leftist hit-list and therefore a free-fire zone.
sharrukin on February 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM
Everyone here disagreed with Limbaugh either regarding his original statement, or they disagreed with his apology.
sharrukin on February 19, 2013 at 5:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »