More on Limbaugh’s defeatism

(Note: earlier readers’ comments on “Foxhole” Limbaugh—meaning he’s someone you don’t want to share a foxhole with—are found in this thread and refer back to this entry.)

David B. writes:

This thread [link is not working] gives Limbaugh’s complete statement Thursday, in which he predicts the bill will “sail through after Memorial Day.” He gives the old, tired social security argument. He still harps on the votes for Democrats. Trent Lott has come out for the bill.

LA replies:

He actually used the words “sail through”? As though its passage will be effortless, as though there were no opposition to it at all—even as though he were wishing it well, since “sail through” is an attractive image. We don’t normally describe things we fear and loathe as “sailing through.” He might as well have said that it would be a “slam-dunk.”

In any case, Limbaugh now serves the same function as the New York Times, which is to make everyone believe that there’s such overwhelming support for the bill that there’s no point in even trying to stop it. Which of course is a standard technique used by the left to demoralize and paralyze opposition.

It’s good to know which side Limbaugh is on in the most fateful battle the country has faced in our lifetime.

Mark Jaws writes:

I agree with you. Rush is an entertainer—and nothing more. When it comes to taking a stand against the impending and menacing Mexicanization of our culture and society, Rush is virtually worthless.

When white people are under attack from all directions, what has Rush done? He has at least 30 to 40 million hard core sympathizers, all of whom have helped to make him the millionaire that he is today, but has Rush ever held a rally on our behalf or spoken out against the forces aligned against us? No, our Rush would rather stay in his comfy and cozy compound and play with his electronic gadgets and gizmos, than confront our enemies. Other ethnic activists make things happen because they have guts. Limbaugh has none. If Rush had been around in the late 1760’s he would likely have been among the most passionate and vociferous tavern speakers against the British monarchy, but when the time came to grab a musket and strike a blow against King George, he’d be hiding under his bed reading his Tom Payne.

Today, conservative and traditional Americans need more than just talk. In addition to an effective cadre of rabble rousers, we need courageous and dynamic leaders who can inspire the masses onto the streets and into action. Rush has had more than ample opportunity to assume this role, but he has chosen to forfeit the game. As a result, he is losing relevance, and time will pass him by.

I heard Newt Gingrich talk the other day on Sean Hannity’s show. The fire has been lit in Newt’s belly as he made reference to a necessary and impending revolution if the amnesty bill passes. I believe in the near future he will cross the Rubicon. And when he does I will join him.

Steven H. writes:

Limbaugh’s performance has been pathetic for years. He likes to think of himself as bold and unafraid of taking on the fight of political correctness while being a man capable of deep thought and profound observations.

With that in mind I almost became ill when he was recently pressed by a liberal caller to define who our enemy is. Well, after endless backpedaling he finally blurted out his answer—“Al Qaeda”.

This was the best answer he could articulate. Later on he mentioned something about Islamo Fascism or some such nonsense. I did not find this very reassuring from a man who berates all those who oppose Bush’s so-called “war on terror” as the “cut and run” crowd.

I wonder what El Rushbo will say when Iraqi Muslims come flooding into this country as refugees? I also wonder if he has even pondered such a thought or what it will mean to the future of this country?

Steve R. writes:

Hi, I just wanted to let you and your readers know that I called the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday and surprisingly got thru. I told the screener that I was a long time listener(which I am) and that it was nice to see that Rush had come around to seeing the importance of the immigration issue. I also said that I felt it was disingenuous to put all the blame on the Democrats and “some Republican elites” for the amnesty bill. The screener told me to hold on and to get right to the point.

About 45 minutes later I was put on the air. After exchanging greetings, I told Rush that I was glad too see that he finally came around to the importance of the open borders/immigration issue. He took offense to that and said that he’s been talking about the issue for several years. After his lengthy response, I had the opportunity to say that I felt that Bush was the chief culprit and that he should stop covering for him. Well he sure didn’t like that. He went on to blame the Democrats since they would be the primary beneficiaries of the amnesty and that Bush genuinely cares for these people and nothing is going to change his mind on this issue. I told him that this is the most important issue facing this country and that Bush will also be responsible for destroying what’s left of the Republican Party. The call ended with him telling the screener not to put people on who don’t listen to the program for the full three hours.

My take on his attitude is, he does not want to rock the boat because it could effect his high flying lifestyle with the elites. Additionally, if I didn’t have children and had his money, I might take the same position. No matter what happens, he will be able to weather the impending storm. He also doesn’t fully get the Moslem problem, which is that they are incompatible with Western Civilization.

I really enjoy the intelligent exchange on your site! Do you ever read the Vanishing American Blog?

He had a great piece the other day that I would highly recommend, “Does culture conquer all?”

Dunnyveg writes:

Consider the following names: Laura Ingraham, Gordon Liddy, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Davis, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin, Charles Krauthammer, Neal Boortz, and many, many others.

I’ve found every one of the above-named individuals talks a good game against amnesty. But the only real difference between their positions on amnesty and Ted Kennedy’s position is that they want the illegals sent home first. And as far as I know, all of the above also support a guest worker program. Whether we’re talking about Ted Kennedy, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other names listed above, they all want to legalize the status quo.

The same holds true for border security. Nobody in the public sphere is discussing fencing the entire length of both borders anymore. The fence proposals they support, whether they be 370 miles or 700 miles, play right into the hands of the open borders crowd. The open borders crowd has been telling us that a fence just won’t work. And since neither of these proposals will properly secure the border, the open borders crowd will come back with an “I told you so”. We’re being made to look like fools.

Other than a few brave souls, nobody in the talking and ruling classes share our goals of halting the inflow and truly securing our borders.

Talk is cheap, and most of the talking class is working overtime to make it worthless. I find Beverly Hillbillies reruns to be infinitely more edifying than talk radio. And I used to be a big fan of talk radio. We have nobody representing our interests anymore.

To me, the real issues here are stopping both legal and illegal immigration, and securing our borders. And I think we’re being let down by almost everybody on both sides of this debate.

Andrew E. writes:

I just wanted to send in a quick message complimenting you on your coverage and analysis of the immigration bill, S.1348, and the debate surrounding it. Collectively, your work and that of all the likeminded intellectuals in the public sphere is the kind of stuff that saves nations.

Sen. Reid wanted to pass the bill by Memorial Day but he failed, the momentum is on our side. The liberals have brought nothing to this fight but an ideology—true, an ideology that can be powerful but that is ultimately hollow. Nothing is lost, regardless of what some fair-weather conservative on the radio says. Keep up the excellent work and continue to remind everyone to keep the heat on our politicians. Much remains to be done.

RB writes:

Although he is a legend in his own mind, Limbaugh is probably not a bad guy. The pity is that he has squandered almost 20 years talking about things of relatively minor importance. If he had spent just half as much time talking about borders, language and culture as he does talking about SUVs and tobacco, he could, given his large audience and his influence in elite Republican circles, have gone down in history as someone who was instrumental in saving the republic. Instead he’ll be known as a popular but ultimately rather inconsequential talk show host. What a waste.

He has observed a number of times, in a jab at environmental “wackos,” that when flying over the country in his Gulfstream, he sees all of this empty space. It never occurred to him that, in addition to highways and subdivisions we also need farmland, watersheds, and perhaps even wilderness for the satisfaction of more ethereal spiritual needs. Well he needn’t have worried. With more Third Worlders flooding in, those spaces are now being occupied. In fact, the U.S. is apparently no longer able to feed itself and now has to import poisoned food products from China and contaminated vegetables from Mexico.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 25, 2007 11:29 AM | Send