Posted on 11/25/2015 11:34:24 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
In the summer of 1992, Rush Limbaugh saved me from myself. I was an 18-year-old high school graduate about to begin college, too impatient to wait for adulthood to come to me. So instead, I went in search of it the only way I knew how: by engulfing myself in presidential politics and the fascinating campaigns that summer between Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ross Perot.
Like many idealistic teens, I was at first drawn to the youthful Clinton campaign and Fleetwood Mac's cheerful command to "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow." But then I started listening to Limbaugh and it changed everything. I was working as a delivery driver, so I'd plan my trips at six minutes after the hour so as to not miss a minute of his show — a habit I keep even today. The way he described his belief in conservatism reached out and grabbed me and I've been a loyal listener ever since.
So it is not from a place of hatred or misunderstanding that I write this. I'm not a plant from Media Matters. But when it comes to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Limbaugh is a mind-numbing, frustrating hypocrite (with all due respect, of course).
His tacit endorsement of Trump, now occurring daily during his show, is almost impossible to understand. Listening to him gleefully discussing Trump is painful for those of us who have followed his advice for decades. Why? Let's break it down.
Look at the polls
For years, Limbaugh has lambasted the "drive-by media" for their insistence on using polling data to make headlines and drive the story of the day. Trump's appearances and speeches, for the most part, are Trump droning on about how well he's doing in the polls. It's often the only story.
Words mean something
One of Limbaugh's biggest criticisms of President Obama has always been the vagueness in Obama's message; in his way of speaking until he can think of something to say; in the blank canvas that he offers us to project our hopes and dreams upon. And that, when he goes off-message, he often misspeaks. Explaining what Obama meant to say has become a cottage industry for websites like Vox and full-time gigs for a variety of nationally known journalists.
When has Trump ever offered anything of substance? His speeches are meandering streams of consciousness, and although he claims each to be unique, they are often the same litanies of vague promises. Trump will negotiate hard with China and Mexico. Trump will make the military so strong it will make your head spin. You'll get bored with winning so much. Chinese bankers live in his building, which proves he can bring jobs back from China. Trump thinks reporters are sleazy. Trump will hit you so hard. And, oh, by the way, have you seen the polls?
Big government
Limbaugh has been the voice for those who believe in smaller government for as long as he's been on the air. So it would stand to reason that challenging Trump on even his vague promises to vastly enlarge an already bloated government should give Limbaugh pause. Apparently, it doesn't. How many new government agencies will be necessary to round up 11 million illegal immigrants, send them back to Mexico and then let them back in? How many billions of dollars will it cost to make the military so great your head will spin? How many government workers will be required to build the Trump wall, complete with a beautiful Trump door?
The Kardashianification of American politics
Limbaugh has long lamented "low-information voters," who, he claims, are responsible for the rise of Obama. It's not his policies that win the day; it's the fact that he's cool and hip. His celebrity overcomes all other weaknesses.
Trump took the money that his father left him and built a series of failed casinos. What else does he have to offer, other than gaudy celebrity?
The Limbaugh Theorem
Simply put, the Limbaugh Theorem is Limbaugh's explanation as to why Obama remains popular when so many of his policies lack public support. It posits that Obama is always campaigning against the bad guys or bad situations, even when those situations are of his own making. It's a disassociation in the public perception of him between cause and effect.
Just peruse Trump's Twitter feed to see the Limbaugh Theorem on full display. He's always campaigning; always ready to right to wrongs in the world. The problem, though, is that many of those wrongs will be borne from a Trump presidency. He'll be there on Twitter or on another stop in his perpetual campaign, making obscenely vague promises that only he can fix what is wrong.
I'm still listening, Rush. But I hope you are, too. We don't need another blank canvas in the Oval Office, gilded or otherwise.
Hale is a freelance writer who lives in San Antonio with his wife and three children.
No, take it like I said it.
Boom.
Obama has been front page news for 30 years? I think you are mistaken on that CW. Clinton was better vetted then Obama having been a governor but in those days the media controlled the narrative now, with the internet, they don’t. Do you really think you are going to find some shock new thing about Trump that an army of NYC reporters missed?
You mistake “headlines” with vetting.
I’m guessing Alaska tells the truth on you.
No. But I'm learning about how "conservative" posters on FR really are - and it seems that they are willing to back a liberal. And that, I find about as discouraging as Rush backing Trump.
It’s a common fault to get hung up on this personality or that, either to the liking or hating side.
I try to look for larger factors. The game of “He has a ding! She has a scratch! Oh look at that nice spot of chrome!” could go on ad infinitum and wouldn’t meaningfully inform anybody. Not if one is acting like a Mercedes Benz, another like a Chevy, and yet another one like a Yugo.
“Obama was not vetted and look what we got.....Now is the time to vet everyone who is running ...including the front runner”
No disagreement there. But the vetting has to be intellectually honest. We’ve been vetting Trump here for the past 6 months. If there is some fundamentally new criticism of Trump that someone brings up, then that’s totally legitimate. If it’s just throwing around the same, tired, discredited arguments, it’s a waste of my time.
“As to throwing the term liberal around on this board,the relationship between
Trumps cheering section and Trump remind me more and more of Obama and his minions .”
You’re conflating two issue here. The first one, I presume, is my comparison of Cincinatus’s Wife’s mindset to that of a liberal. I stand by what I said. If she’s not a liberal, she certainly shares a lot of their thinking patterns and character traits.
As far as your comment about Trump’s ‘cheering section’, I can only speak for myself when I say that my support is based on a rational assessment of what I believe he is likely to accomplish as President, and a comparison with others. It’s that simple.
The repeated characterization of Trump supporters as being ‘cheer leaders’, or a ‘cult of personality’, is an easy way of ignoring the very substantive arguments that many Trump supporters here have put forth as to why they support him. There have been great posts over the past 6 months that have made the case for Trump and which have been based on thoughtful argument, not mindless cheerleading. All you have to do is look.
You said nothing. You didn’t answer the question. Continuing evidence to the mountains of deceit and dissension you foment here daily.
You just can’t seem to grasp the concept that you are the one with the fixation, we are just trying our best to point it out.
Just as He said we must do. The blessing just comes with it, said or not.
Try again.
Was it something I said?
Lol you really do fight like a girl.
I can picture you standing in the pulpit in the Church of Trump, thundering about my sins (not sucking up to Trump).
Remember the folly of taking a snapshot and characterizing the ever-moving entity that you did it to, as being what you see in the snapshot. “Freeze and polarize.”
Alinsky did, and that is why he recommends doing it in Rules for Radicals. Sell one’s soul to Satan? Small price for bringing someone you hate, down. (In that frame of mind, it seems that way.)
In real life, people are always on the move. If you can perceive where they are moving to, you will have a better idea of what their tomorrow will look like.
How is the substance of the op-ed/letter (topic of this thread) Alinsky?
Try to stay on topic.
It’s always something you said, or haven’t said.
BTW, what’s up with your repeated bizarre and sexist reply ? Do you hate a hatred for your own (purported) gender or something ? You’re not planning a Chastity/Chaz Bono switcheroo in your near future, are you ?
Hmm, let's see:
The writer's assertion is patently false, and amounts to nothing more than clumsy propaganda.
Nope. From what I can tell from the tone is that he still loves her in his heart and does not go after her personally, just trying like the rest of us to instill a bit of reality to lighten her view.
Criminee, she is a great snapping turtle advocate but somehow the hearing doesn’t register when the thunder claps.
Whom did I say I was supporting in the primary, or can’t you remember through that dense fog of deceit ?
You are the one attacking. I deny your parry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.