Rush-To-Judgment Limbaugh is Liberated ©

This week Rush Limbaugh taught me much or more accurately reminded me of what I already too all too well.  When communities [countries, neighborhoods, or a domestic liaison] are built on a foundation of fear, what will we reap?  Each of us entered this world full of love and hope.  Every baby, all newborns are a bundle of love.  We, as elders, cuddle and coo with delight as we watch infants explore.  We say we wish to encourage curiosity and the desire to learn.  Yet, we are torn.  Limbaugh was; now he is liberated!

As a society, within families, as parents, teachers, and administrators we are told what is “appropriate,” “responsible,” or “proper.”  We experience what will happen if we question this conventional wisdom.  Thus, when teaching our young we, as a “community” do everything to quell what we individually, purport to honor.  We squeeze the life out of a young, open exploring mind.  We crush the dreams of our youth; we destroy opportunities for those that forget the “talking points.”  We do not encourage discovery.  We demand conformity.

This practice becomes policy and is evident in every avenue of our lives.  Sadly, most of us accept it.  We adopt the standards society dictates.  We lose a sense of self and “carry the water” others claim we must.  Ahh, to be liberated, to be free, to know that we can grow without criticism, what might the world be if we could share our genuine beliefs, feel what is truly within us, be authentically as we are, and state what we truly think.  Rush Limbaugh might know.

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.

Now I’m liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don’t deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don’t deserve it.  I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own.  But now with what has happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing.  If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future — both in Congress and the administration — are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that’s liberating.  I don’t say this with any animosity about anybody, and I don’t mean to make this too personal.

I’m not trying to tell you that this is about me.  I’m just answering questions that I’ve had from people about how I feel.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh felt beholding to his President or his party, perhaps, both.  Unlike the many before him Rush was not paid by the Administration to pontificate, it is just what Rush does best.  In an advertising campaign to promote the Limbaugh show years ago, this broadcaster announced, “You do not need to think.  I will tell you want to think”; and so Rush does.

However, since Election Day, Mr. Limbaugh is singing a different tune.  What is a voter, a citizen to believe now?  Please tell us Rush.  On Wednesday, November 8, 2006, a defeated commentator concluded,

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.

Then this politico stated the truth, reality set in, Rush relayed, “I’m a radio guy!” Exactly; yet, millions of Americans follow this leader religiously.  As Limbaugh observed.

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.  Am I making myself clear on this, Mr.  Snerdley?

Radio announcer Rush Limbaugh is making himself very clear.  He does not wish to be confused or equated with the numerous others that were illegally paid to posture for this Administration or proposed Republic programs.  Limbaugh separates himself from sellouts such as, Armstrong Williams, a conservative “authority” asked to speak in favor of the Bush Education program, “No Child Left Behind.”  Mr. Limbaugh does not want the public to suppose that like the prominent journalist Williams did, Rush received $240,000 from the Administration or the Republican Party for his efforts.  He did not.

Rush does not wish to be associated with, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, a professed authority on marriage and family issues.  This wondrous woman received two federal contracts totaling $41,500 for writing brochures, a magazine article, and a report each advising government employees to support of the president’s marriage initiative.

Nor does radio host Limbaugh want to be linked to liars such as Mike McManus.  It was revealed that this correspondent also sold his soul; he was the third is a series.  “Mike McManus who writes a weekly column syndicated in 30 to 40 newspapers, said he was paid about $4,000 to train marriage mentors in 2003 and 2004.”  McManus was considered a subcontractor.  The Lewin Group, a healthcare policy research and management-consulting firm, bought his services.  McManus’ job was to support community-based programs “to form and sustain healthy marriages” and to speak in favor of the Bush marriage initiative.  McManus wrote of the program in several of his columns.  His own non-profit group, Marriage Savers, was also being paid $49,000 by an organization that received a Health and Human Services grant.  the purpose was to teach [Bush, religious right] principles to unwed couples that are having children.

Mr. Limbaugh is not among those that betray their principles; he is an honorable man.

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.

Rush is an ethical man, a man on a mission.  He knows “right” from “wrong,” “left” from “right.”  Mr. Limbaugh, a “radio guy” is an expert on what would serve this country best.

My thinking is: the left doesn’t deserve to win.  My thinking is: the country is imperiled with liberal victory.  We may not have the best people on our side, but they’re better than what we have on the left.  But it has been difficult sometimes, when these people on our side have not had the guts to stand up for themselves, have not had the guts to explain what they really believe and why they’re doing what they’re doing.  When they haven’t had the courage to be who they are, when they haven’t had the courage to be conservatives.

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.

Yes, Rush you are the man, the water bearer not free.  Mr. Limbaugh I applaud your awareness and desire to take responsibility.  However, I am fascinated by your delay.  If the ties that bound you were of your own making, why did you not release yourself from these shackles sooner?  I wonder, how can we, the public trust you now [not as though I ever did.]

I wonder what might your fellow journalists say of your revelation, and of you as a credible news source. Keith Obermann offered a wink and a nod.  Please view, “Rush Limbaugh Feels Liberated.”

What might a former avid listener say?  Harvard graduate student, writer, and a former Limbaugh follower Valarie Kaur writes of her personal experience of the broadcaster.  She speaks of how her Dad was once a fan and now, can no longer tolerate a man that

has called the torture at Abu Ghraib no different from what happens at a college initiation. He has compared it to a Britney Spears concert. And he has defended it by saying that the soldiers involved needed emotional release.

Ms. Kaur, after appearing in a play addressing the Abu Ghraib prison incidents was ridiculed by the Rush-to-judgment announcer.  She writes, “Rush accused me and other Harvard students of hating America because we put on a play about Abu Ghraib.  Not only did he reveal his profound moral ignorance, he lost a man who used to be his biggest fan — my dad.”

Valarie Kaur adds, Mr. Limbaugh admits, he did not attend a performance; she is happy to extend an invitation to him.  Perhaps, each of us might invite Mr. Limbaugh to attend.  Would we, as a nation not welcome his awareness, his attention to details.  Mr. Limbaugh, if you not trust your own words, if you are speaking out because you think you should, and not because you believe in a Congress and this Administration, if you are merely conforming to the standards of others, please stop yourself.  Explore.  Be free and liberate us all!

References for your review . . .

Conservative Columnist David Brooks Publicly Bashes Bush ©

0923_sb_db2  It was a Friday evening, September 23, 2005.  The program was Public Broadcasting Services New Hour; Jim Lehrer was the host. The topic was Katrina.  What was the cost of the storm, and what of the monies President George W. Bush promised for rebuilding?

Jim Lehrer introduced the subject by saying that reports reveal the “conservatives are upset;” they do not think the Bush proposals are wise. Lehrer posed the question, what do Republicans intend to do with their frustrations?  Lehrer turned to conservative syndicated columnist David Brooks for the answer.

Brooks, in an honest moment, muttered the words, “George Bush has spent money at a faster clip than Lyndon Johnson.”  Hearing this utterance from David Brooks was so shocking to newscaster Lehrer, he was visibly taken aback.  Mr. Lehrer said, with a noticeable lilt in his voice, “Say that again.”

Brooks rapidly replied, “Domestic discretionary spending, non-defense spending, non-homeland security spending has increased.”  He added, spending “has increased under George W. Bush twice as fast as under Bill Clinton, and faster than under Lyndon Baines Johnson.”

Brooks continued, “Conservatives didn’t expect that in 2000. I guarantee you that. A lot of it is, frankly, the Republican Congress’s fault.”

Wow!  A registered right-winger is saying that the Republicans are at fault. What happened to “eleventh commandment” as voiced by super President Ronald Reagan?  I thought that conservatives were never supposed to criticize members of their own party.  Yet, it occurred, here on television. Anyone or everyone could be watching!  What will party loyalists think, say, or do?  Granted, the increasing debt and the constant spending troubles many.  Yet, to speak of it aloud and publicly, this was quite a feat.

New York Times writer David Brooks persisted, “If you look back, when we look back on this period, we are going to look at a Congress that came [in] preaching limited government, but just has gone hog-wild in spending.”

Tis true. Nonetheless, who would have expected to hear these words from this well-known conservative columnist?  Brooks reflected further saying, we have “a president who never disciplined members of his own party to restrain themselves.”  Mr. Brooks proclaimed, “There’s just a lot of built-up anger . . .

It was a glorious moment.  Though Brooks went on to propose standard Republican policies, this moment will forever be etched in time, in my memory, and I wanted to share it with you.

Please read, A Bushian Laboratory, By David Brooks

Kristol Cracks Under Pressure; States Sheehan is the Leader. ©

Aug19_ok_bill3Rarely do I write merely to rant.  I work to comment, calmly, and yet, in this moment, I must rage against a political machine, the neo-conservative machine.  Tonight automaton Bill [William] Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, chairman, and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, was among the guests featured on the News Hour.  He spoke in his typical controlled and composed manner.  He attempted to be jovial and conversant.  However, when when the topic of Cindy Sheehan was posed his demeanor changed, instantly.

When asked of the anti-war phenomenon Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant offered, what for me, is a truth.  He said, “Cindy Sheehan became a metaphor for America’s impatience, frustration, and ambivalence about the continuing American involvement.  However, “It’s much bigger than her.”

Kristol rebuffed this assessment, stating, “I think it’s grotesque. I think the left has found a new weapon to oppose the president and the war, and that weapon is martyrdom, and they are using the death of a soldier in this case and the mother’s grief over that death to try to, obviously, rally support, as Mrs. Sheehan has made perfectly clear to get the troops out of Iraq.”

All this was fine; I was enjoying the exchange.  I am very familiar with Bill Kristol and none of his comments were unexpected.

It was his later statement that compelled me to write.  Kristol extolled, “She’s the leader of the antiwar movement now.”

The look on his face as he made this claim could have killed.  Being a man that believes in bloodbaths, I feared where he might do. He was livid; his voice cracking, and his face flushed.

Earlier, he made mention that Sheehan joined the antiwar pressure groups approximately a year ago.  Actually, his exact words were “Mrs. Sheehan has been active in antiwar activities for a year. She’s a member of an antiwar group. She was on Nightline eight months ago arguing against the war in Iraq.”  I wonder; how does this make her a leader?

Mr. Kristol. I acknowledge that you are a well-educated man, a [supposed] scholar, a graduate of Harvard University, and a man who has achieved much.  Your pursuit and receipt of a doctorate degree is impressive.  You have attained more eminence than most, and this is inspiring.  Yet, when you conclude as you did I wonder. Do you really believe the antiwar movement began only a year ago or that Cindy Sheehan is its leader?

As a person that has been protesting these Middle Eastern wars since before the first bomb fell, I beg to differ.  There are millions of us that have been against the mayhem for many years.  Cindy Sheehan is not our guide; we are not following her.  We are supporting her, the soldiers, and those whose lives we honor.  Those of us that want peace revere humanity.  We wish you and your President did as well!

• Mr. Kristol has published numerous articles and essays on topics including constitutional law, political philosophy, and public policy.  He has co-edited several books.  William Kristol composed The Neoconservative Imagination, with Christopher DeMuth.  This book was published in 1995.  He has also co-authored, Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary with E. J. Dionne, Jr., 2001, The Future is Now: American Confronts the New Genetics with Eric Cohen, 2002. Bill Kristol is well known for co-authoring, the best-selling book The War Over Iraq with Lawrence Kaplan.

Kristol is renowned among the “right.”  He regularly appears on Fox News Channel and the neo-conservatives consider him an eloquent and leading political analysts.  He serves on the boards of the Manhattan Institute, the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs, and the Shalem Foundation.