At this point, this is old news. But I recently had reason to think about it again, and wanted some sort of reference as to the specifics, so I’m adding them here, for posterity’s sake.
The claim is that Rush Limbaugh does not believe what he says. The “proof” is here (that’s rushlimbaugh.com, his own personal website, the transcript dated November 8th, 2006). Here’s the relevant quote from Rush’s page, just in case he ever changes it:
The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I’m going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don’t think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, “Well, why have you been doing it?” Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country’s than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.
So what does “carrying the water” for someone mean? Limbaugh explains:
There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can’t even make the case themselves — and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs. I’m a radio guy! I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has. I was doing what I thought best, but at this point, people who don’t deserve to have their water carried, or have themselves explained as they would like to say things but somehow aren’t able to, I’m not under that kind of pressure.
So… the Republican party would do things that Limbaugh didn’t approve of, and rather be honest about it, he would go on the air and pretend that he did approve. Is that lying? Limbaugh’s producer (Bo Snerdley) became worried and interrupted for a moment to ask him about it. Limbaugh responded:
No, I’m not lying. Snerdley’s concerned. I’ve not lied about anything I’ve said. Let me try this a different way. (sigh) I’m going to have to think about this. I tried to make it as clear as I can. I’m not going to eat my own, and I’m not going to throw my own overboard, particularly in a campaign, and particularly when the country is at war — and I’m not going to do it for selfish reasons, and I’m not going to do it to stand out, and I’m not going to do it to be different. I’m not going to do it to draw attention from our enemies. I’m not going to do anything I do so that the Drive-By Media will like me or think that, “Ooooh, Limbaugh has changed! Ooooh, Limbaugh is coming around!” That’s not my thinking. …
It has been a challenge to come in here and look at some of the weaknesses and some of the missed opportunities and try to cover for them and make up for them and make sure that the opportunities are not totally lost. But at some point you have to say, “I’m not them, and I can’t assume the responsibility for their success. It isn’t my job to make them succeed. It isn’t my job to make elected Republicans look good if they can’t do it themselves. It’s not my job to make them understandable and understood if they can’t do it themselves — not in perpetuity, not ad infinitum.” So all I can tell you is I feel a little liberated, and I think this is all going to result in a lot of cleansing in a number of areas.
Translation: I’m a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, and while I sit here and say things to advance the Party, I don’t believe them. But that’s not lying. That’s just repeating things I don’t believe as if I believed them. It may imply that I believe them, but since I never said I did, it’s not lying.
No, maybe not lying. There’s another more polite word for it: acting.
How long as this been going on, then?
There hasn’t been any ideology in the Republican Party, any conservatism, for at least two to maybe four years. You could argue Bush was more of an ideologue in the presidential campaign of ‘04, but in looking at what happened yesterday, it wasn’t conservatism that lost.
So, if Limbaugh believes in conservatism, he’s been lying/acting for the past two, maybe four years.
Well, make your own decision about him. Obviously some folks don’t care whether or not he believes what he says or not. And I guess there’s a market for that. But if you’re looking for honest opinion, Limbaugh ain’t it.
P.S. I do recognize the silliness in using the words of a liar/actor to prove anything.
Comments (2)
hi kyle, dont take offense.
from what i read, rush seemed to be saying that, yes, he has tried to "carry the water" of the republicans for a few years or so, but that they havent really done what he thought they would do or said they would do. he doesnt mention conservatism. in fact, one would have to assume that he is mad at the republicans have been anything but conservative, as that is the philosophy he has dedicated himself to promoting. and it seems that he is frusterated with that, and that he supported the republicans because they were engaged in a war that he thought was right, and he was going to promote that war because a loss of public support would lead to a general degeneration of support for conservatism (as that war is perceived as a conservative move, or a move supported by conservatives). but they abandoned their traditional conservative values and have not lived up to their promises. and i think thats what rush is saying, that he is frusterated with the lack of conservatism amongst republicans in power, and that he will not support such action any further. again, no offense, thats just what i read.
sam
Posted by Sam | January 8, 2007 10:47 PM
Posted on January 8, 2007 22:47
Hi Sam,
No offense taken. On the contrary, he does mention conservatism: "There hasn’t been any ideology in the Republican Party, any conservatism, for at least two to maybe four years." What he said was, essentially, that he endorsed positions that he did not believe in, because he felt that it was his responsibility to encourage the public support necessary to maintain power. I agree, he was trying to be supportive of "conservatism" because he probably thought that conservatives—or rather, people he admits were conservatives in name only (i.e. Republicans)—would lose power if he did not. But is it a virtue to tell people you support something when you do not, simply because you support the facade that the people who are currently in power are maintaining? When people are betraying your chosen cause (conservatism), but you support them anyway because they have become the public face of your cause, are you not also betraying your chosen cause? If nothing else, when the truth is revealed (as it inevitably will be) that the people in power are only pretending to believe what you wish they believed, is that not far worse? When you tell an untruth in support of a cause, does that make it not a lie? When you support people you believe to have betrayed your cause, regardless of why, have you not also betrayed your cause? And more to the point, should he not reveal the truth of the matter now that he feels he does not have to endorse things that make him cringe? Admit what it is that he has previously championed that he didn't even like at the time, come clean with his audience about the details of his untruths? It seems to me there is a fundamental dishonesty here, and whether it was in the service of something he believed in or not does not change at all whether it is a valid (or moral) action.
What I think is probably more accurate is that he was entirely blindsided. He claims that he's believed for years that Republicans were not being true to their supposed raison d'etre, and that he supported them anyway. If that were true, I think he comes out looking like a terrible liar. But I think it is not true, and that he is saying this now in order to protect "conservatism" (whatever that means anymore). He wants to be able to claim moral victory, he wants to be able to say that his ideology is still the ideology of "the people", and the only way he can do that is to pretend that the people he has been supporting for years have had nothing to do with his ideology. And that's a very thin line to walk. He has to both discredit the Republican conservative credentials of the people recently voted out of office (so that it doesn't look as though "conservatism" has lost favor), AND come off as if he knew all along what was going on (so that people will still listen to him), AND somehow manage to make a credible claim that his support for them was the "right thing" to do at the time (so that people will still believe him). Do you buy it?
Posted by Kyle | January 11, 2007 6:52 PM
Posted on January 11, 2007 18:52