Monday, March 02, 2009

Regarding the Rush Limbaugh Bruhaha

As everyone knows Rush Limbaugh has been much in the news recently--particularly following his appearance at CPAC this past Saturday. Television and print newspeople as well as boggers have bee intensely arguing ever since, over the merits of Rush, and even over whether or not he is currently the true leader of the Republican Party.

Certainly Rush's galvanizing impact opens myriad issues for consideration. Just recently Harrogate went to the Townhall bloggers to see just how deep up Rush's ass they have crawled at this point. The answer: pretty far.

Here is a clip one of the bloggers showed, wherein CNN's Bill Schneider lampoons Rush's tactics. But what Harrogate most wants to draw your attention to here, Readers, is less the clip, or even Townhall's Green-Blooded Bloggers. Nay. What Harrogate wants ye to see is this comment by one who calls herself (?) "lilly":

It is About Anger
I notice that the most popular Republican speakers on the right are those most gifted at turning a crowd into an angry mob. They get the most appreciation from the crowd by ridiculing, mocking, sneering, jeering, exaggerating, and misrepresenting. I heard Rush Limbaugh the other day pretending to lisp as he mimicked a certain person on the left; try to translate that fake lisp into words and see what the message is and answer the question, Why did the crowd love this? What is there about mocking that so delights them?

I remember at the Republican Convention 2004, Band-Aids were handed out that mocked John Kerry's Purple Heart. Sarah Palin mocked community organizers and all Americans who don't live in small towns or the countryside (not "the Real America"). Last week a Republican mayor entertained his friends by sending out an email showing the White House lawn planted as a watermelon patch. There seems to be something about Republicans that they can't get enough of mocking and sneering---they love it. And sneery mocking doesn't come from love, but from anger.

Are conservatives angry? Judging from what they say on townhall, I would say so: shoot Democrats, stockpile guns, go armed all the time, get ready for armed insurrection, hanging a noose isn't racist, send your kids to a school where they get beaten, load immigrants into trucks and dump them at the border, don't permit foreign languages to be spoken, pass laws to marginalize those you disapprove of. And be sure to make fun of those different from yourself.

This is one of the cleanest, most poignant articulations of what has happened to this nation's Republican Party, that Harrogate has ever seen. And so Harrogate wanted y'all to see it too.


solon said...

It is odd that the chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele needs to apologize to Rush after he called the show "ugly."

For some reason, Conservatives believe this is a winning strategy. But, maybe it is: when you cannot develop a governing philosophy and only desire to win elections, civility is not necessary.

Yet, it does reveal narcissism at its finest: An entire party exists around the idea that government is bad and too big. Yet, these fools run for government so they can be the savior and "end big government." Messiah complex, look out.

Man must conservatives be upset that it was Clinton that stated "The era of big government was over." It might have been up until Katrina.

solon said...

This is a joke (from Politico):

Steele's original comment:
“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.”

His apology:
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.”

“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not."

“I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.”

Conservatives must bow to an entertainer.

p-duck said...

Back in undergrad days I had a bumper sticker on my dorm room door that said "I think therefore I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh." It made my neighbors mad and they would never speak to me because of the sticker (we exchanged angry messages on our dry erase boards though). This was 14 years ago. I had hoped he was a passing trend. I was wrong, but I still think.

The Roof Almighty said...

Do allow me to mark this occasion:

This is the first time I have ever heard this excuse.

After years of "I didn't say that, it is out of context" or "media bias" or "gotcha journalism" this is the first time I have ever heard a grown up adult human being say, "I didn't say that; my mouth did."

There truly is no "I" in cognitive dissonance.