Rush’s Critics Need to Read What He Actually Said.
I’ve not written much about the Rush Limbaugh controversy that the White House has cooked up but, given the direction the argument has been moving among conservatives, it’s probably time I did. My post is prompted by this from Jeff Goldstein, this semi-retort my Patterico, and this overall analysis Gabriel Malor. I recommend you read them all to get a very good taste of the arguments in play.
Rush’s critics, and most of his defenders, have missed the point entirely. They missed it because they accepted what the White House’s attack team of Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, Paul Begala, and George Stephanopoulos told them Rush said. I can’t tell you why they accepted the word of the MSM over checking the transcript for themselves, but I’m not that foolish. So, here’s what he really said (and I’ve added some emphasis):
I got a request here from a major American print publication. “Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal.” Now, we’re caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your “hope.” My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.
That’s pretty different from what you’ve heard he said, I’ll bet. I’ll also bet that no one talking about this ginned-up controversy told you that he said this on January 16th, before the President was inaugurated. That makes a difference, doesn’t it? As a matter of fact, it’s pretty darned clear that he was in no way saying that he hopes the President’s policies, when they are enacted, will fail. He was saying that he wants the President to fail to get his policies enacted. That’s hardly a controversial position, unless you take four words completely out of their linguistic and temporal context, which is exactly what the White House’s attack team did.
Patterico, David Frum, and plenty of other conservatives who should have known better fell for it big-time. Shame on them and shame, especially, on Patterico who, as a lawyer, should know better than to let his opponent frame the argument. Here, from his own defense, is a great example of how badly he got suckered:
I ran a poll on my site yesterday in which I said: of course no conservative wants Obama’s policies enacted. Of course Rush wants Obama to “fail” to enact them. But, assuming Obama’s policies are enacted anyway, do you interpret Rush to be saying that he wants the policies to 1) succeed, meaning the economy improves? or 2) fail, meaning socialism fails, allowing conservative principles to re-emerge?
Right off the bat, Patterico agrees with Rush — says almost exactly the same thing Rush did in January — but then he sets up the very same strawman the White House set up. Remember that Rush’s Four Words has nothing at all to do with the President’s policies once they were enacted and everything to do with their being enacted in the first place.
What he’s really asking us to do is to guess Rush’s intention based on a distortion of his words even though we already know what he really said and really meant. Is that a fair thing to do? We might as well shake up a Magic 8-Ball and take its answer. It would be just as accurate as any guess we could make.
Yet he uses the conflicting answers to a question for which none of us has enough information to give an informed answer as proof that Rush didn’t communicate his point clearly enough.
That’s unfair not just to Rush but to all of us. Of course Patterico is going to get conflicting answers because he’s requiring us to read Rush’s mind. I’d take a stab at answering his question, but my Dr. Xavier Psychic Booster Helmet is in the shop right now. I’d say the very best answer is one he didn’t give: 3) I don’t know because he didn’t say one way or the other.
I don’t doubt that Patterico’s heart is in the right place. He wants the conservative movement to prosper and I’m very sure that he sees this controversy as something that’s going to drive voters away. But it’s pretty clear to me that he’s working from intentionally-misleading information. He’s the one doing the damage, which is exactly what Carville, Begala, and the rest want him to do.
He’d be a lot better helping Jeff Goldstein get what he wants in this Age of Obama.
I don’t want to have to measure every word I say with the thought in mind that somebody is going to take me out of context. Instead, I’d like to be free to say what I mean, and when my meaning is obvious, I would like to know that honest people have my back — and will tell dishonest people to stop being dishonest, and stupid people that they need to smarten up before they presume to join the conversation.
Patterico is right when he says that we conservatives need to “have to be extra careful to express yourself clearly” [Emphasis in the original]. I say that no one can communicate clearly in an environment where such an egregious distortion of someone’s clear meaning is not just meekly accepted but is also used as grounds for attack by our own side. We need to defend the language otherwise no one will be able to communicate clearly. That’s what the left has been doing for a long time now. It is at the heart of Bill Clinton’s “the meaning of is” and the very core of Barack Obama’s “hope and change”. If we don’t jump on the lies and misquotes with both feet, we deserve whatever beating we take when the clear meaning of our words is twisted into something the left can use against us. One of Rush’s favorite sayings during the Clinton administration was “Words mean things”. As we’ve seen this past week, Rush again was right.
The simple fact is that the Democrats and the MSM are lying about Rush Limbaugh. They are misquoting him, either out of malice or laziness, and we should not let them get away with it. Patterico, Gabriel, and the rest of Rush’s critics say they want the Republican party to return to the majority again. That will never happen if they continue to let the left choose the ground for the debate and the weapons we will be allowed to use.
UPDATE: Linked by protein wisdom. Thank you, Dan!
UPDATE 2: Patterico defends Rush about as much as I believe he’s going to and shoves the progressive fantasy-makers off the high ground here. Also, see the comments here for an exchange I think might be interesting.
UPDATE 3: Kathy Shaidle for the win!
UPDATE 4: The final word, beautifully written.
Other Posts of Interest:
- The Leader is Vexed
- The Democrats’ Reckless Rush to Stimulate
- Suddenly, the President Learns That Rush Is a Smart Man with Time on His Hands
Category: Conservatism, Featured, Our New Democratic Overlords, President Barack Obama
"That makes a difference, doesn’t it? As a matter of fact, it’s pretty darned clear that he was in no way saying that he hopes the President’s policies, when they are enacted, will fail."
It's clear to you, but it wasn't clear to me and it wasn't clear to my commenters, many of whom thought the precise opposite.
And agreed that they wanted Obama's policies to fail once enacted.
What was funny about my poll was how ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE everyone was about their ow interpretation.
And yeah, I did read his remarks and his CPAC speech.
Your commenters thought that, as I said, because you forced them to attempt to read his mind. What he said is right there in black and white.
I think you're flat wrong to attack him instead of attacking the people who purposefully misquoted him and seeded the MSM with the prevailing story. You use language as a weapon every day. You should know better.
own interpretation
No, Jimmie, thank you. Really.
Quite welcome. Our language is important and we're fools if we let the likes of James Carville and Rahm Emanuel decide the ground on which we'll fight as well at the weapons we'll use. That's how you end up like the French at the Battle of Poitiers.
I didn't force them to do anything. Some disagreed with the premise, some said it was "obviously" one thing, and some said it was "obviously" another.
I wanted to defend him on the grounds of being misquoted. I went and read his text and realized I didn't know precisely what he meant.
That blows me away. I read the four sentences before his now-famous Four Words and it's crystal clear to me what he's saying. Heck, that he said this before the man was even sworn in would be a pretty big clue about his intention.
You can't very well oppose policies that aren't in place.
Would you grant though Pat, that the formulation given to Rush's meaning by Henry and Gibbs in the White House briefing was utterly false? If you can grant that without resorting to pinning the fault for the falsehood on Limbaugh (as I'd wager that nearly all your readers can, whether they chose #1, #2 or none of the above), then it seems to me that whatever ambiguity may adhere to Limbaugh's speech, the arrow of blame is fixed.
Perhaps we should now focus on why Obama's (Liberal's, Progressive's) policies will fail if/when they're all passed – no hoping about it. But that's something else Limbaugh has been talking about for the past 20 years – as well as the whole Conservative movement since it began.
If you haven't seen this, you should check it out. Obama's crew are still following the Alinsky format.
http://www.qando.net/?p=1242
Here's the relevant quote, but the whole thing is worth reading.
"Try Rule 12 from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals“:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions."
…
"And as for the attacks coming from the White House Press podium? Rule 5 covers that:
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions."
In other words, don't let them divide and conquer.
Remember how the Democrats "supported" President Bush. Remember how they wanted him to "succeed"…! If they _didn't_ want him to succeed, then they wanted him to fail. Just because they were politically correct and said it in different terms doesn't mean they weren't saying the exact same thing. And that was at a time when we had military forces fighting and dying.
Back Rush – if you agree with him generally. Have some faith. First back the people you believe to be on your side. If you find they've erred in their judgment, make a note of it and talk to them about it if you're in a position to. Don't let the Dems hang a fellow Republican out to dry. We need to stick together. The differences between us are less than the differences between us and the Dems.
[...] Rush, and of the recent unpleasantness, is available at the Sundries Shack. Posted by Dan Collins @ 1:41 pm | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Best Short Summary of [...]
"Would you grant though Pat, that the formulation given to Rush’s meaning by Henry and Gibbs in the White House briefing was utterly false?"
Not "utterly" — from what I remember.
It's a reasonable interpretation of his words that he was hoping for a short-term economic downturn. I know you don't subscribe to that, but many of my readers thought that was exactly what he meant — and they agreed.
I think Gibbs accused him of wishing economic harm on America. That's unfair because it doesn't provide all the context — but that's what politicall opponents do. Doesn't make it right, but it's not surrpising. But "utterly" false? Dunno. Depends on what he meant. Wish he had made that part clearer.
Blah, blah, blah,blah
Rush lovers, move to Kansas, it's all you got left
Actually, on every economic issue thus far, we have popular opinion, too.
Ace:
Yup. It's a reasonable interpretation. Which is why so many conservatives interpret it that way.
I suppose. I think you have to push the context nearly to the breaking point and you have to ignore his rather plain statements in the sentences just before the Four Words to get that interpretation but obviously some conservatives are willing to grant that.
Still better, I think, to defend plain English and push back against the distortions of language instead of demanding linguistic purity from everyone in the public eye. More speech, remember? Free from intimidation? We conservatives used to believe in that.
How is it a "distortion" of language when Ace and I and many other conservatives are saying the statements can reasonably be read this way?
You seem to be arguing for the right to be sloppy. And I normally wouldn't want to be hypercritical of phrasing, except both utterances of the "I hope he fails" formulation seem utterly premeditated. One was on a radio program where he was warned by staff that it would be controversial. The other was in a planned-out speech.
I call it a distortion because you have to ignore other things he said in those two paragraphs to get to the other interpretation. You can call ignoring them "reasonable" and you could well be right, but it does require that you do some ignoring and twisting to get there.
And no, I'm not arguing for sloppiness. I'm arguing for the freedom to have my plain meaning accepted as the one I intended instead of some other meaning that someone said I could possibly have meant. When Rush says, "I do not want the government in charge of all of these things." it is crystal clear that he's not talking about how the policies will play out since Obama's policies as he stated them would, when passed, put those things in government control. He ought to be able to expect us to defend that meaning, especially as he has explained it on his show several times.
You seem to want to concede the argument to the left. We both know that no matter how cleanly Rush had phrased his sentiment, it would have been used by the left because Emanuel, Carville, et al has targeted him before that. You're engaged just the way they want you to be – restricting the way Rush speaks instead of defending the simplest and most defensible meaning of his words.
I don't think you have to ignore anything to interpret it the way that Ace, I, and countless of my commenters believe is a reasonable way to interpret it. It's not the ONLY reasonable interpretation, but it's a fair reading.
Of course, everyone is convinced that THEIR reading is the only fair one. But there is NO QUOTE you can point to in which Rush says that he doesn't want the economy to suffer, even for a second. All he says is that he doesn't want the policies to succeed — which does not tell me which of the two (actually three) interpretations set forth in my <a>poll is correct.
If he had made himself clearer, I would not want to "cede" or "concede" anything, or allow others to "frame" the "narrative," or any of the other buzzwords I keep hearing. I STARTED TO DRAFT A POST DEFENDING RUSH ON THIS POINT, weeks ago, until I read his words and realized that what I had assumed I would find there, was not there.
But it's a matter of faith. I will never convince you. Everyone who has an interpretaton thinks theirs is the ONLY reasonable interpretation. It's just that the interpretations are very different.
Kind of like a religious text.
I already pointed out one thing you'd have to ignore in my last comment so you're incorrect on that.
Not really. When I say "I do not want the government in charge of all these things" I am being very plain. It does not mean that I want the government in charge a little, then want the government to fail thus damaging these things. It means I do not want them in charge.
I think you're giving him far too little credit and the left who concocted this controversy far too much. But, hey, like religion, sometimes you have to cozy up to people you don't like.
I don't think there's any doubt that Rush was hoping for the utter failure of Obama's presidency. And why is that? Read what he said. He said he needed only four words on his "hope for the Obama presidency." If Rush had his way, this is what would have appeared in this publication:
WHAT ARE YOUR HOPES FOR OBAMA?
We asked people from around the country what they wanted to see of our new president. What they said might surprise you
Jan. 20 2009
RUSH LIMBAUGH, conservative broadcaster
"I hope he fails."
…
It can't be any clearer than that. He feels this is sufficient explanation of his position to a worldwide audience.
So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.”
Yes he was. So was I. Like I said, there are two paragraphs where he says very specifically what he wants. You can either take the simple explanation of make up something more complex.
Rod Dreher Finds the Subtle Nuances in Mass Murder…
If you look past the murders, this story actually has a happy ending because it shows that it is possible to save our kids from homosexuality….
[...] Jimmie at Sundries Shack: I’ll also bet that no one talking about this ginned-up controversy told you that he said this on January 16th, before the President was inaugurated. That makes a difference, doesn’t it? [...]
[...] were, you know, unbiased. Instead, media and written opinion writers fanned the flames. Flames that enveloped the right side of the blogosphere: Patterico, Ace, HotAir’s Allah, and others on one side; [...]