The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Some Thoughts on Rush

Text Size

I've had my differences with Rush Limbaugh ("Operation Chaos" comes immediately to mind), but I also admire his ability to transmit conservative ideas to a mass audience and make it entertaining. Seeing him on the same stage as Ann Coulter on the same day really demonstrated that he's in a league of his own as far as conservative media personalities goes. Listening to Coulter you would have suffered through a series of lame and dated one-liners that communicated Obama voted "present" in the Illinois state senate, had no executive experience, and that Jeremiah Wright was his pastor. But Limbaugh actually took his time on the stage to do something useful. He reaffirmed, on a basic level, what it means to be a conservative -- to believe in the power of individuals to make better decisions for themselves than the government. Even to those conservatives who aren't Limbaugh fans, it was hard to listen to his speech, which went on for about 90 minutes, without agreeing with his central point.

He was also right on target by saying that Republicans need to make not procedural but philosophical arguments against liberalism and for conservatism. And yes, we need to root out those who claim to be conservatives, but argue that the only way to win is to embrace big government. This "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality is bad politics in addition to being bad philosophy.

When the story of this period of the conservative movement is written, I wouldn't be surprised if Rush's talk to CPAC this year is considered a historically significant speech. At a time when conservatives are demoralized, he reaffirmed why we're all part of this thing in the first place. For those who weren't there, it was quite a sight. Not only did he have the packed audience inside the ballroom on its feet, but at one point I slipped out to the bathroom, and I saw people watching on TV screens in all of the hallways and sitting on staircases.

If you missed the speech, the transcript and video is available here.

View all comments (21) | Leave a comment

John Mark Reynolds| 3.2.09 @ 1:57PM

I listened to the Rush speech.

Three things about it:

1. It appealed to the base, but I fail to see how it went beyond that base.

2. It was a bad speech. It was rambling, full of "insider lingo," and far too long. It spoke mostly to the people in the hall and not to the (much) larger television audience. At speech making Obama versus Rush is like Rush versus Colmes in radio.

3. Philosophically it relied on the dubious notion (to conservatives) that "the people" are good . . . as opposed to the "checks and balances view" of people and government that trusted neither people or the state with total power.

John Mark Reynolds| 3.2.09 @ 2:05PM

I should add that in my experience in talking to half-persuaded college students (open to conservatism, but not there yet), Rush (and his speech) is totally negative.

Three reasons (in no particular order):

Like it or not, people in this demographic are sensitive about issues of race. Rush comes across as a boor on the topic.

Second, Rush is bad at "uplift" in his speeches. He sounds angry when he means to be positive. That is bad in the college age demographic.

Third, Rush has too little sense of irony. His bluster may be ironic, but a good many people miss the joke. See Shatner, William for someone who knows how to do it better . . . but even then who wouldn't be delighted if Bill Shatner become the image of the Democratic Party.

Rush is a great, great entertainer. The best at radio ever, but he is a shallow thinker who often fails to practice what he preaches. As such he is a bad public face for the conservative movement.

Does anyone remember the visuals of Tip O'Neil behind Reagan? Rush is our visual Tip O'Neil.

Andrew Ian Dodge| 3.2.09 @ 2:13PM

JMR: Well put mate. Exactly my thoughts on Rush & his speech.

Janet| 3.2.09 @ 2:55PM

Rush was on point! He laid out what needed to be said regarding what conservatism truly is. He was inspirational in what this country is all about and where its success came from - the freedom of the human spirit with hard work and the need to move back to a smaller and more responsive government based on those principles. I was glad that he finally put Obama in perspective as to his socialist movement and how it abrogates our Constitution. Limaugh has demonstrated more wisdom and integrity than the whole of our current administration who will drive this nation into the ground. Obama is a devout Marxist and will turn this nation into a failed state with a tyrannical leader. America - wake-up you're being HAD. Thank you Rush for defining the war on our liberty.

aware| 3.2.09 @ 3:02PM

The only problem I have with Rush is the same as with modern conservatism... they hate the Left more than they hate the State. The real enemy of freedom is the State and the power it wields.
Only when the Left is in charge do we see the fear of the State among "conservatives". If we had the same hatred and fear of the State for the past 8 or 12 years that we see now great strides could have been made to restore Constitutional government.

Instead the "Right", as usual, has handed back to the Left a State much bigger, more intrusive, more consuming, and more out of control than ever. The Left(or the Right for that matter) could do very little mischief if it didn't have the State to do its dirty work.

John Mark Reynolds| 3.2.09 @ 3:23PM

Two thoughts about the most recent comments:

First, conservatives don't "hate" the state. We don't put our faith in it, but we see it has uses. We want a small state, but also know that it needs to be big enough to protect us from foes (domestic and foreign.) Big business can be as abusive big government.

Second, calling Obama Marxist strikes me as counterproductive for two reasons. First, it is not true. Second, even if it were true, it sounds "over heated" and zany and will turn off the 6 percent or so we need to persuade in order to win.

It is always bad to wrong and impractical at the same time.

Kat| 3.2.09 @ 3:33PM

Rush doesn't hate anybody, neither do Conservatives, (at least the ones I know). Most haters I know are on the left. People are blind if they don't know that.

John Mark Reynolds| 3.2.09 @ 3:47PM

Be clear: I am not saying Rush is "evil" or a "hater." I don't know the man. I do know that he has an excellent and entertaining radio show. However, his "demographic" is everyone my age and older . . . and is in a shrinking segment of the population.

It would not be good, therefore, for conservatives to hitch their wagon to a communications strategy that only speaks to folk likely to vote for them anyway.

We should not compromise our ideas, but we should be flexible with our style.

Rush works for many of us. Great. Rush does not work for most Americans. We need to see that and develop more public speakers . . . not throw Rush under the bus, but also not make him the driver.

Situations require different skills. Rush has real skill in radio edutainment, but he is not great at everything!

Rush (for example) is a bad debater when he does not control the mike. We need more folk (Jindal is one) who can "geek out" and debate. Rush is not a good platform speaker. Palin is awesome.

Palin, Jindal, and Rush are good at some things and bad at others (as was Reagan) and to merely defend our "own" is group think and not very conservative.

Kat| 3.2.09 @ 3:51PM

It would be nice if we actually had some Conservative leaders. It's pathetic that we have to depend on Rush for leadership--it reflects poorly on our party--not Rush.

iamse7en| 3.2.09 @ 4:05PM

JMR,

You are in the minority, my friend. That speech was one of the greatest political speeches of my lifetime.

"It was a bad speech?" You're crazy, man. You're sounding like a liberal.

John Mark Reynolds| 3.2.09 @ 4:14PM

iamse7en,

I may (or may not) be a minority amongst conservatives (over the age of forty), but I bet I am not a minority amongst Americans.

The "greatest political speeches" of my lifetime changed minds . . . and made winning possible. They were not angry, incoherent rambles that required a Secret Conservative Decoder Ring to follow.

There is a reason the DNC wants Rush to be the face of the Republican Party.

I like Rush, the radio guy. I agree with his politics (generally), but if Rush becomes the public face of conservatism:

1. He will make much money. (Good for him!)

2. We will lose in 2012. These are not the Nineties.

Kat| 3.2.09 @ 4:28PM

If Conservatives stay true to their principles they will win. We don't have to grovel or morph into something we are not to be victorious, because our ideals are timeless. We just need some decent leaders to articulate those ideals and principles. Rush is terrific, and I will always love him, he also gave a great speech on Saturday.

John Mark Reynolds| 3.2.09 @ 4:34PM

Kat,

We totally agree!

The trick is we need leaders who can communicate our ideas to someone who does not totally agree with us as we are about 40% of the public.

Sadly, Rush cannot do that or never has. Why should he? He gets our blood up and that is his job.

His speech showed his limits. . . . and nobody is saying you cannot "love" his strong stands. But come now . . . take any great speech (try Gettysburg) and lay it down next to the Rush speech. This was not historic, was not very good, and was not even very thoughtful.

It also got one big aspect of conservatism wrong.

Kat| 3.2.09 @ 4:53PM

You go, John Mark! Follow your instincts that will lead to victory. Frankly, I don't give a damn what you think. LOL.

Interloper| 3.2.09 @ 5:48PM

Of course Philip Klein is kneeling and kissing Rush Limbaugh's ring. That is what a conservative had better do if he wants to stay out of trouble. We will see what happens to those who momentarily forget with Michael Steele's coming lynch mob.

I found this passage in Klein's piece telling:

"He reaffirmed, on a basic level, what it means to be a conservative -- to believe in the power of individuals to make better decisions for themselves than the government."

Rush Limbaugh's behavior is just the opposite of that. His personal life has been an exercise in boorishness and immorality - drug abuse, frequenting prostitutes (with the help of Viagra), multiple divorces, racism, sexism, pathological lying, etc. In his professional role, his main accomplishment is to establish the nadir of American political discourse. (And, yes, I know the fact he got very rich along the way will be proof of his 'goodness' to some people.)

Nutty Mutty| 3.2.09 @ 5:54PM

Klein might kiss Rush's ring but it's a far sight better than you kissing Obama's butt, libtard Looper.

Basil Plumley| 3.2.09 @ 6:19PM

Interloper--you are a colossal jewel of ignorance.

You talk about a lynch mob for Michael Steele. However, was it not your enlightened Lefties who tried to lynch Justice Clarence Thomas?
You constantly preen about these blogs decrying how this person or that issue is a desire to return to the Confederacy. Yet, you Professor, have no problem with lynching anyone who disagrees with your point of view. You want Blacks to live on the plantation; to wait on your beck and call. If there is anyone around here who desires to go back to the Confederacy; it is you.
The very same person who thinks "separate, but equal" is a good thing. You have some nerve accusing others what you are guilty of.

As to Limbaugh's behavior, are you without sin? Perhaps, you can enlighten this board concerning your time in Leavenworth ...... or perhaps enlighten us where you garnered your degrees in History, Law, and Psychology. Gee whiz, talk about pathological lying ...... you are the very definition.

And you're complaining!!!

If Limbaugh were guilty of half of what you accuse him of but yet a liberal Democrat, you would be on your knees begging Rush to run for POTUS.

Frankly, your act is wearing very thin. If you ever make a post in good faith, it would be a first. The nadir of American political discourse usually involves one of your posts and your talking points.

Conservative Hottie| 3.2.09 @ 6:45PM

Basil, you are always so proper, so civilized. Wonder if your demeanor would work for you in a street fight. Just askin', sir.

Basil Plumley| 3.2.09 @ 6:56PM

I haven't lost one yet. Although anything greater than three and I call for back-up.

The rumor is that I am a nice guy but I have a problem with the "suffer fools gladly" bit.

Conservative Hottie| 3.2.09 @ 8:20PM

Sound like my kind of guy, and I like the fact you've kept score. I'd take a strong but silent type, silent waters run deep kinda guy (you get the picture) any day over a fat-mouthed liberal loser like Loopy. Not even a contest. ;)

Ben| 3.3.09 @ 6:54AM

Ann Coulter was great, and I thought she hit more than a few new nails on the head. I'd like to see Klein capture an audience - and what's so bad about restating old truths in new ways? Some people need to be reminded. Her baby jokes,her Lincoln jokes, her carpenter vs. plumber jokes. They were all great, and fresh to many ears too. Of course, some people are jealous, period.