About this Washington Times story regarding efforts by the left to silence Rush Limbaugh, I had some thoughts.
The first is that we know by now that the outrage on the left about Limbaugh’s comments about Sandra Fluke was largely false and feigned. We know this because if the fury were genuine, it would extend to vulgar comments leveled against all women, not just liberal ones. But the refusal of the Obama campaign team to return Bill Maher’s $1 million Super PAC contribution, combined with their silence in the wake of other attacks on conservative women, has given away the game. I’m reminded of how the feminist movement reacted to Anita Hill’s charges against Clarence Thomas v. the actions of Bill Clinton. Even if you believed everything Ms. Hill said (and I do not), Thomas’s actions paled in comparison to how Clinton has treated women. And yet the former was vilified and the latter was celebrated.
Second, liberals have failed to beat Limbaugh at his own game (talk radio) for almost three decades now. The left tried Air America and all sorts of other routes; none has worked. So they have settled on this one. What they are aiming to do is to delegitimize Limbaugh, to silence him because they hate him, his style, and his ideas.
I would think that even some of those who don’t cotton to Limbaugh might be a bit uneasy about the tactics the left is using. They’re not illegal, but they reveal a somewhat troubling cast of mind.
Limbaugh’s critics have every right to go after him on the merits and to their heart’s content; that’s what a robust, free, self-governing nation does. David Brooks of the New York Times argues that Limbaugh has hurt conservatism, and he’s articulated his case on several occasions. That’s all fine and good. But the impulse on the left is more authoritarian than that. Many liberals have long been disposed to use whatever means they can — including the power of government, if necessary (see the so-called Fairness Doctrine for more) — to silence the voices and views of those with whom they disagree.
My own sense is that the left scored some damaging blows against Limbaugh early on but has since overplayed its hand; and that the blinding hypocrisy of Limbaugh’s critics has undermined their cause. Their attacks aren’t really about morality or civil public discourse; they are about power and the will to power. That is what separates Brooks from, say, Media Matters.
I’ll even make a prediction: Rush Limbaugh will be sitting behind the Golden EIB microphone years from now, still with a large and loyal audience in place, still arguing with David Brooks about this and that issue. And that is, as it ought to be.
Peter, are you just waking up? This contrived attack on Limbaugh is part of the campaign strategy to publicly ridicule notable conservatives, this is nothing new for the Left – it seems a standard movement in their attempted orchestration of public opinion. Even when their baseless attacks are proven to be such, the negative publicity lingers (for years the minions of the Left will invoke this as evidence of conservative misogyny) … the method works even in failure.
The notion that most complaints to Limbaugh’s advertisers arise from “astro-turfing” by Democratic activists and the outrage about his misogyny is feigned is wishful thinking on your and Limbaugh’s part, in my opinion, despite Media Matters’ prominence in opposing him. n nI’ve been a registered Independent for decades who’s voted Republican as often as I’ve voted for Democrats: in 2008 I not only voted for McCain, I even put up a campaign sign supporting him in my front yard. But Limbaugh’s distortions about the core of Sandra Fluke’s testimony — that many if not most women need to take birth control pills at some point in their lives, NOT for contraceptive purposes but rather to manage serious medical disorders of their ovaries and uteruses (such as potentially lethal ovarian hemorrhages)— and Limbaugh's demand that Fluke post videos of herself on the web having sex for his entertainment and that of his audience, convinced me — as a woman and the suburban soccer mom of a teenage daughter who suffers from such a medical condition — that his misogyny was so far beyond the pale of what is tolerable in a civil society I had to take action personally. I have therefore started listening to the advertisements on his show as broadcast on WPHT in Philadelphia and am calling and writing all the advertisers whose products or services I currently or might ever use to tell them I will not do so so long as they advertise on his program, and I am forwarding copies of my emails to friends and family, asking them to consider doing the same. I have no affiliation with Media Matters or any other organized group opposing Limbaugh if only because my own political views are doubtless too conservative for us both, but I am so incensed by Limbaugh’s attacks on Sandra Fluke that I intend to pursue these efforts until Limbaugh’s advertisers — and WPHT — experience an economic cost. n nLet me emphasize again that the gravamen of my complaint — like Peggy Noonan's and George Will's — is not Limbaugh's political views but rather his MISOGYNY. This is my real name and I’m in the phone book in the Philadelphia suburbs, if anyone on the Commentary staff feels the need to verify who I am. n n
Ms Judge, am I correct that you also extended your letter writing campaign to the advertisers of David Letterman, Ed Schultz and Bill Maher? n
When David Letterman accused Sarah Palin — for whom I also voted in 2008 — of dressing like a "slutty stewardess" and "joked" about her daughter being "knocked up" by one of the Yankees, I immediately emailed Letterman, demanding an apology, on which I cc'd CBS. Letterman's prompt apology was sufficiently adequate, in my opinion, that further action wasn't warranted. n nBy the time I heard about Ed Schultz's "right wing slut" comment about Laura Ingraham (I don't watch MSNBC) he had already been suspended by the network without pay and had issued an apology that made no excuses for his poor behavior, and in the course of his public apology Schultz also said he had called Ingraham first to apologize to her personally, which I consider the bare minimum if an apology is sincere (unlike Limbaugh's). Given the adequacy of Letterman's and Schultz's apologies and Schultz's well-deserved suspension I felt there was no need to take further action against their advertisers. Premiere and Clear Channel, in contrast to MSNBC have indicated they intend to take no disciplinary action against Limbaugh. n nBill Maher I consider as personally loathesome as Limbaugh, but he has no advertisers to complain to, being on HBO, so I will never subscribe to HBO so long as they carry his program: his comments about Sarah Palin and her daughter are utterly inexcusable, and I have written HBO to tell them so. n nHowever, what put me over the edge with Limbaugh, as I explained above, was not merely his description of Fluke as a "slut" and a "prostitute" — those were the LEAST of his offenses in my opinion — but rather his non-stop three-day barrage of libelous attacks, culminating in his demand that Fluke post sex videos of herself online for his titillation and that of his audience. Limbaugh NEVER apologized for that indefensible demand nor the vast majority of his other attacks on Fluke, which cannot be adequately encompassed by "a poor choice of words". "Slut" and "prostitute" were indeed poor choices of words, but they constituted only a tiny, tiny percentage of his attacks on Fluke in totality. n nSo spare me the attempted false equivalence: epic fail, as my children would say. n
Cathleen; n nI'm sure your righteous indignation will serve to stifle free speech wherever you go. However, at issue here is not about Limbaugh crossing a line, but how the Left manages to maintain an unabashed and blatant hypocrisy when it comes to [virtually any issue here]. n nThis suggests that they simply want power, which is consistent with demagoguery. Surely, however, there are Leftists with some shred of integrity, but they have been bullied by their comrades into silence lest they be ostracized or worse, considered a Republican. Many of us neo-cons come from such a background, having discovered that any critical attempt is met with hostility and derision.
RUSH IS A VICTIM!
Rush can put it out , but he cannot take it. Pardon me women, but he is such a wuss.
Limbaugh needs to go for the sake of securing the safety of all Americans. He is a Nazi and there is no place for that sort on the air. By whatever means necessary – he has to go.